agate τα - fhe ti
ὮΝ _
ES
cStine
OS poe
Sree
hahah
ens
a A has,
mien
PRS ER ge
a Sha eee
ν αν γὴ ὶὶ >
S
See
ON st)
oe
A Wrtine,
ToS
La eaten e
ell © ea
ube
=
aoe
TN
aac sonia
ἣν
=
WOT
Fer’ :
« set pmanong sos ily
-. ee,
ie Cone
ρῶν ve ate ES
vitae τς
iy re EM
~
“eS
rea
Lin hone αν)
SSeledaceg ee
pit tn et eae
WON oem STWR,
ΡΥ
Weng
Samet petra
Ἔν ΚΆΡΑ Sean
SNe
See ἔα
ee a anes
an
nS et
Saal ae
a
al a ae
Ἶ
μήν... |
BREN te Ne eR pI σας
"
vgs δ
r Jee
gene HO A
HEBRAICA ET TALMUDIC:
HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL EXERCITATIONS
UPON
THE GOSPELS, THE ACTS,
SOME CHAPTERS OF
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,
AND
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
BY
JOHN LIGHTFOOT, D. Ὁ,
MASTER OF CATHARINE HALL, CAMBRIDGE.
A NEW EDITION,
BY
THE REV. ROBERT GANDELL, M.A,
ASSISTANT TUTOR OF MAGDALEN HALL,
LATE MICHEL FELLOW OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD.
IN FOUR VOLUMES,
ΘΟ, TY:
OXFORD:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
M.DCCC.LIX.
HORA
HEBRAICA, ET TALMUDIC;
OR,
HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL
EXERCITATIONS
UPON THE
ACTS OF THE APOSTLE HS:
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. B
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/noraehebraicaeetO4lighuoft .
ADa
LECTOREM PRAFATIO.,
Sa CRAM Scripturam (Amice Lector) pre aliis omnibus, que
hactenus apud homines literis mandata habentur, facile principem
esse nemini dubium erit, qui, ne quid de summa ejus antiquitate
dicam, Autorem illius atque institutum paulo attentius considerarit.
Nam cum primum Divini Spiritus afflatu fuerit consignata, deque
rebus summi momenti agat, tum etiam ad preestantissimum scopum
collimare certum est, ut genus nempe humanum ad eternam felici-
tatem perducat ; inde merito censere debemus eam ita fuisse Dei
consilio conscriptam, ut huic fini quam optime inserviret ; adeoque
pios homines, qui simplici corde ac preejudiciis exuto ad ipsam ac-
cesserint, fructum plane eximium ex ejus lectione percepturos.
Quanquam vero hee ita sint, tamen aliqua in sacris hisce paginis
δυσνύητα esse negari minime potest ; ac facile evenire hine posse, ut
homines, ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι, ea prave distorqueant, ac, ut cum
S. Petro loqui pergam, πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὑτῶν ἀπώλειαν pervertant.
Neque arduum certe foret plurima istius modi loca adducere : sed
cum heee jam abunde ab aliis fuerint tractata, nec res id a me jam
exigat, operee pretium non sum ratus de iis hic fusius disquirere.
At enimvero quo plures majoresque in sacro hoe codice difficul-
tates occurrunt, et quo gravius ejus sensum corrumpendi periculum
nobis impendet, eo alacrius instare debemus, ut illa ommia a nobis
diligenter ac studiose adhibeantur, que tum ad sensum ejus recte
assequendum, tum ad periculi hujus magnitudinem evitandam, con-
ducant. Non enim idcirco, ut aliqui improbe opinantur, quod non-
nulla in eo difficiliora sint, abjici continuo debet ; sed eo majori cura
ac modestia est evolvendus ; atque omnino arbitrari equum est id
potius tum humane rationis debilitati, tum voluntatis et affectuum
pravitati, (que menti caliginem offundit) tribuendum, quod in harum
rerum cognitione majorem profectum non fecerimus.
Nee sane mirum alicui videri debet, in libro vetustissimo ante tot
secula scripto, eaque in gente cujus ritus ac consuetudines maximam
fere partem ignoramus, tot inveniri obscura et intellectu difficilia.
Quare ea aut perperam rejicere, aut, quod nonnulli faciunt, sibique
inde ac aliis urbani videri volunt, risu ac sannis excipere, iniquissi-
ἃ Not in the English folio edition. _ En.
B 2
AD LECTOREM PRAFATIO.
mum est. Liquido enim constat plurima in ea, vel ipsis fatentibus,
preeclara et eximia contineri; ut non aliter nobis de eo censendum
sit, quam fecit olim Socrates de quodam Heracliti scripto, de quo
sententiam rogatus ita respondit,*A μὲν συνῆκα γενναῖα. οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ἃ
μὴ συνῆκα, i.e. La quidem que assecutus sum, pulchra sunt ; puto
item et que non sum assecutus. Preeterea videmus nostris hisce
temporibus illustria quedam ingenia extitisse, que summas ejus
difficultates egregie enoddrunt ; unde non sit desperandum quin pari
successu, et ea que etiamnum restant, explicentur. Quinimo iis,
que jam prestita ab ipsis sunt, multo majora et preestantiora fieri
possent, et in posterum fient, si Principes ac Magistratus tum im-
pensam ad hee necessariam, tum alia que in eorum potestate sunt
subsidia, conferre velint. Ejusmodi enim sunt hee studia, ut, ad ea
perfecte absolvenda, cum populis Orientalibus commercia colere,
eorum scripta penitius cognoscere, regionesque iis habitatas invisere
ac perlustrare necessum sit.
Inter alios autem Viros prestantissimos, populares nostros, qui
insignem in veteribus sacra Scripture ritibus explicandis operam
nayvarunt, merito primum locum occupat (ut ego arbitror) Johannes
Lightfoot, S. T. D., Auleeque S. Catharine in Academia Cantabrigi-
ensi non ita pridem preefectus. - Majori industria an modestia fuerit,
dicere nequeo ; erat ille quidem in omni literatura, Hebraica vero
inprimis, peritissimus ; in Sacris Seripturis diligentissime atque ac-
curatissime versatus. Ad hzec, Verbi Divini preeco assiduus ; summa
preeterea morum simplicitate conspicuus; ab omni animi fastu ac
φιλαυτίᾳ Maxime alienus. Neminem aut lesit aut contempsit ; verbo
dicam; qualis revera vir fuerit, plurima ab ipso edito, tum Latino
tum vernaculo nostro sermone, preclare testantur. Quzeque ille ad
extricandas hasce sacrarum literarum difficultates eruditissime om-
nino ac felicissime preestitit, satis fidem faciunt, quanta demum pre-
stari possent, si ea (de quibus jam ante dixi) accederent, quibusque
eximius hic yir plane erat destitutus.
Quod ad sequentia attinet σχεδιάσματα, ex proprio Autoris MSto
desumpta, typis jam excuduntur; nee preeconio sane ullo ad aucu-
pandam Lectoris benevolentiam egent ; satis ipsi constabit cujus
sint, nomineque, quod in fronte ostentant, optimi hujus viri, haud
esse indigna. Equidem decreyeram de vitee, siudiorumque Reve-
rendi doctissimique Autoris ratione breviter sermonem instituisse,
sed unici ejus fratris morte preeventus sum ; unde iis omnibus, que
ad hane rem opus erant, penitus excidi : quamobrem in preesentia-
rum tantum esto.
R. KIDDER.
HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL
EXERCITATIONS*
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
CEVA:P oi.
VER 1: Τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην, ὅθ. The former
treatise have I made, 8.5.5] We may reduce to this place (for
even thus far it may be extended) what our historian had
said in the very entrance of his Gospel, ἔδοξε καμοὶ καθεξῆς
σοὶ γράψαι, it seemed good to me also to write unto thee in order:
where καθεξῆς, in order, seems to promise, not only an orderly
series of the history of the actions of our Saviour, but succes-
sively, even of the apostles too. For what passages we have
related to us in this book may very well be reckoned amongst
the πράγματα πεπληροφορημένα, those things which are most surely
believed among us. Indeed, by the very style in this place he
shews that he had a design of writing these stories jointly ;
that is to say, first to give us a narration of the actions and
doctrine of Christ, and then,.in their due place and order, to
commit to writing the acts and sayings of the apostles.
As to most of the things contained in this book, St. Luke
was both αὐτόπτης, an eyewitness, yea, and a part also: but
how far he was spectator of those acts of our Saviour which
he relates in his other book, none can say. What he speaks
in the preface of that work is ambiguous, ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ πᾶσιν ἄνω-
θεν παρηκολουθηκότι, and leaves the reader to inquire whether
he means, he had a perfect understanding of all things from the
very first, by the same only way which those had that undertook
to compile the evangelical histories from the mouth αὐτοπτῶν
ἃ English folio edit., vol. ii. p.633. Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 685.
6 Hebrew and Talnudical [Chit 2-
Kal ὑπηρετῶν τοῦ λόγου, of those that were eyewitnesses, and min-
isters of the word; or whether he came to this understanding
of things from the first, he himself having been from the be-
ginning an eyewitness and a minister; or, lastly, whether he
does not by the word ἄνωθεν declare that he understood all
these things from heaven, and from above. We have taken it
in this last sense in our notes upon that place, as being beyond
all controversy that he was divinely inspired, and the Spirit
From above governed his pen while he was writing those things.
But whether it might not mean, according to the second sense
(for the first we wholly disallow), viz. that St. Luke was
amongst those who adhered to our Saviour Christ from his
very first preaching of the gospel, I leave it to the inquiry of
the reader to determine.
Ὧν ἤρξατο ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν, &e. Of» all that Jesus began both to
do, &c.| Iam sensible that in the common dialect, to begin to
do, and to do, is one and the same thing. But I suppose the
phrase in this place is to be taken relatively; q.d. “In the
former treatise I discoursed of all those things which Jesus
himself 4egan to do and to teach: in this I am to give a rela-
tion of those things which were continued by his apostles
after him.”
Ver. 2: Ava Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου: Through the Holy Ghost.)
Expositors place these words differently. The Syriac, one
of the Arabic copies, Beza, and the Italian, place them next
after ods ἐξελέξατο, whom he had chosen: that the sense ac-
cording to them is, “after that he had given commandments
to the apostles whom he had chosen through the Holy Ghost.”
But the other Arabic, as also the Vulgar, the French and
English translations, retain the same order of the words as
we find them in the Greek text: most rightly rendering it,
“after that he through the Holy Ghost had given ecommand-
ments.” Which also of old had been done by God to the pro-
phets, dictating to them by the inspiration® of his Holy Spirit
what they should teach and preach.
The apostles had indeed east out devils and healed diseases
through the Spirit ; but it is a question, whether they had as
yet taught any thing but what they had heard verbatim from
the mouth of their great Master. He had given them a pro-
> English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 634. © Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 686.
Ch. 9/7] Kxercitations upon the Acts. zi
mise, that they should bind and loose the law of Moses: he
had told them, that there were several things yet behind that
must be revealed to them, which as yet they could not bear,
concerning which they should be further instructed by the in-
spiration of the Spirit. When therefore he had risen and
breathed in their face, saying, ‘‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost ;”
from that time they were endued with the Spirit as the pro-
phets of old, who dictated to them what they should preach,
what they should require, and what they should ordain. And
now nothing was wanting but the gift of tongues; that what
was dictated to them they might declare and make known to
all men in their own languages.
Ver. 3: At ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς: Being
seen of them forty days.| ‘It4 is a tradition. On the evening
of the Passover they hanged Jesus. And a crier went before
him for forty days, saying, ‘ Behold the man condemned to be
stoned, because by the help of magic he hath deceived and
drawn away Israel into an apostasy. Whoever hath any thing
to allege in testimony of his innocence, let him come forth
and bear witness.’ But they found none that would be a wit-
ness in his behalf.” But he himself (O thou tongue, fit to be
cut out) gives a sufficient testimony of his own innocence ;
having for the space of forty days conversed amongst men
after his resurrection from death, under the power of which
he could not be kept by reason of his innocence.
“Ite is a tradition. R. Eliezer saith, ‘The days of the
Messiah are forty years,’ according as it is said, ‘ Forty years
VID WIN shall I be grieved with this generation.” The
Gloss is, “ Because it is WAP (in the future tense) it is a
sign the prophecy is concerning the time to come.” It is in-
genuously done, however, of these Jews, that they parallel that
faithless generation that was in the days of the Messiah with
that perverse and rebellious generation that had been in the
wilderness: for they will, both of them, prove a loathing and
offence to God for the space of forty years. And as those
forty years in the wilderness were numbered according to the
forty days in which the land had been searching; so also
may those forty years of the Messiah be numbered according
d Sanhedr. fol. 43. 1. € Ibid. fol. gg. 1. f Num. xiv. 34.
8 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. 1. 4.
to the forty days wherein he was conversant amongst man-
kind after his resurrection from the dead. But you must
compute warily, lest you stumble at the threshold about the
year of Tiberius wherein Christ rose again; or at the close
about the year of Vespasian wherein Jerusalem was taken.
‘EdA@ μὲν (saith Josephus &) ἱἹεροσόλυμα ἔτει δευτέρῳ τοῦ
Οὐεσπασιανοῦ ἡγεμονίας, Jerusalem was taken in the second year
of Vespasian’s reign: When indeed, according to the “ Fasti
Consulares,’ it was taken in his first year; but his second
year from the time wherein he had been declared emperor by
the army. He is saluted emperor by the army in Egypt at
the very calends of July, and the fifth of the ides of July in
Judea. So that his first year from the time of his being de-
clared emperor was complete on the calends of July the year
following ; but indeed, it was but half his first year accord-
ing to the computation of the ‘ Fasti. Now Jerusalem was
sacked on the eighth of September following.
Ver. 4h: Kai συναλιζόμενος μετ᾽ αὐτῶν παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς"
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them, &c.}
We will make some inquiry, both as to the place and time
wherein these things were spoken and done.
I. We derive the word συναλιζόμενος not from ἃλς, salt, but
from ἁλία, an assembly or congregation. So the Lexicons :
ἁλία, a congregation ; ἐκκλησία, ἄθροισμα, an assembly. po-
εἰπαςοὶ ἁλίζειν Πέρσας στρατὸν, When thou shalt give notice to the
Persians to gather their forces together. Τά τε αἰπόλια καὶ τὰς
ποίμνας καὶ τὰ βουκόλια ὁ Κῦρος πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς συναλίσας ἐς
τὠυτὸ ἔθυε: Cyrus, having gathered together his-father’s flocks and
herds of goats, and sheep, and oxen, sacrificed them’, &e.
II. Our Saviour, after his resurrection, never appeared
amongst his disciples but by surprise and unexpectedly, ex-
cepting that one time in the mountain of Galilee, where he
had appointed to meet with them, Matt. xxvili.16. So that
I would refer these words therefore to that passage in St.
Matthew; so that συναλιζόμενος μετ᾽ αὐτῶν may signify his
meeting with them in the mountain of Galilee, according to
the appointment he had made. Nor do those words hinder
& De Bell. lib. vi. cap. 47. [Hud- i Herodot. Polymn. [vii.] cap. 12.
son, p.1292.] (vi. 10. 1.] k Td. Clio [i.], cap. 126.
" English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 635.
Ch. i. 4.] Evereitations upon the Acts. 9
that it is said, “he commanded them that they should not
depart from Jerusalem,” &c.; as if it should necessarily be
supposed that they were now at Jerusalem: that passage
ver. 6, of οὖν συνελθόντες, when they were come together, may
signify their assembling in that place; and the words παρήγ-
γειλεν αὐτοῖς, he commanded them, &c., may very well be con-
strued, that he commanded them to repair straightway to Jeru-
salem, and not to depart thence.
Ill. I conceive, therefore, that these things were spoken
and done in the mountain of Galilee (where Soe Ay the five
hundred at once were together to see him, 1 Cor. xv. 6), and
that when the time of his ascension drew near. For reason
would persuade us that they would not delay their return into
the city when he had commanded them thither: nor that he
commanded them thither but when the time drew near
wherein he was to meet them there.
And whereas he adds in the very same place and discourse,
ver. 5, Οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας, not many days hence ; it
is necessary that the word ταύτας should have its due force,
having not been added here in vain; but seems to respect
the days that were yet to come between that and Pentecost.
We have frequent mention amongst the Rabbins concerning
TOD ON, the ‘ Puras’ of the Passover, and MALY OAD the
‘ Paras’ of Pentecost, and 371 DB the “ Paras’ of the feast
of Tabernacles. Now the Ὁ. Paras (themselves being the
interpreters) was that space of fifteen days immediately be-
fore any of these feasts. So that five-and-thirty days after
the second of the Passover, began the MABYT DAD the
‘Paras’ of the feast of Tabernacles: and the second day of
those fifteen was (this year) the Lord’s day, on which I almost
think they had that assembly on the mountain of Galilee, and
that the disciples, being remanded from thence to Jerusalem,
got thither within three days. But lest we should straiten
the matter within too narrow a compass of time, and seem
too nice and curious about the very day, I should judge we
ean hardly nore properly apply these words συναλιζόμενος μετ᾽
αὐτῶν, being assembled together with them, than to that meeting
on the mountain of Galilee which Christ himself had made
the appointment of. From thence it was that Christ com-
1 Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 687.
10 Hebrew and Talmudical [( ‘h. Te 6.
manded them to Jerusalem, a place which, having tainted
itself with the blood of their Lord, they might probably have
very little mind to return to again, had it not been by some
special command: and do we think they would have gone
thither to have celebrated the feast of Pentecost, or indeed
have been present all at it in that place, had not their Master
directed them so to do?
Ver.6: Ei ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ
᾿Ισραήλ; Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? |
It is very apparent, that the apostles had the same fanciful
conceptions about the earthly reign of Christ with the rest of
that nation: but yet they seem here a little to doubt and
hesitate, either as to the thing itself, or at least as to the
time; and that not without cause, considering some things
which had so lately fallen out. ‘ Lord, wilt thou restore the
kingdom to those that have dealt so basely and perfidiously
with thee? What, to this generation, that lies under the actual
guilt of thy bloodshed? Or indeed to™ this nation at all, which,
by the perpetration of the late wickedness, had made itself
unworthy of so great a kindness?’ Now what our Saviour re-
turns for answer, viz. “that it is not for them to know the
times or the seasons,” does not in the least hint any such
kingdom ever to be; but he openly rebukes their curiosity in
inquiring into the times, and in some measure the opinion
itself, when he tells them, that “they should receive power
from heaven, and should be his witnesses,” &e.
What that nation apprehended concerning the temporal
reign of the Messias, as to many things they speak plainly
and openly enough; but in other things a man may inquire,
but can hardly satisfy himself what they mean or intend. To
omit others, they are in three things somewhat obscure :
I. Whether the ten tribes be to be admitted to the felici-
ties of this reign? For as to this matter it is disputed by the
Rabbins. “ The ten tribes are not to return™.” But in the
Jerusalem Talmudists it is expressed thus: “ The ten tribes
have not a part in the world to come, sny> PRY JTN
sad neither shall they see the future age.” Which is dis-
coursed in the Babylonian writers, viz. whether this be not to
be understood of those individual persons only that were car-
m English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 636. " Sanhedr. cap. Chelek, halak. 7.
Ch. 1. 6.] Exerettations upon the Acts. Τ᾽
ried away by the king of Assyria; that they indeed shall not
partake of the blessings of the Messias, though their posterity
should. So that there may lie hid something of ambiguity in
the word /srael in this passage we are now examining; that
is, whether, in the conception of those that speak it, the ten
tribes are included, yea or no. For commonly the name
Israel amongst the Jews was wont to be taken for the Jews
only; so that they called themselves /srael, and the ten
tribes, by way of distinction, the ten tribes. In which sense,
and according to which distinction, that of the apostle» seems
to be said, “ Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israel-
ites? so am I.”
II. What opinion was to be had of the two Messiahs, Mes-
siah Ben David, and Messiah Ben Joseph, or Ben Ephraim,
as he is called by the paraphrast, Cant. iv. 5? Whether they
were to reign at the same time, the one over the ten tribes,
the other over the two? or whether in succession to one
another, both of them over the whole nation? Messiah Ben
Joseph was to be cut offp. And then what must become of
his subjects, whether they were of the ten tribes, or of the two,
or of all?
ITI. It is further obscure in their writings, whether they
had an apprehension that the Messiah should reign alone ; or
whether he should substitute any king or kings under him, or
after him. It seems probable to them that the Messiah
should reign his thousand years alone: but then as to that
age which they called sas my (if eternity be not meant by
it), what did they conceive must be done in it? Whether
kings should be substituted in it of the race of David? They
can dream of nothing but mere earthly things: and if from
such kind of dreams we might conjecture what kind of future
state that NS TNy should be, we may guess what should
then be done. But to what purpose is it to trace error, where,
as we cannot so much as fix a foot, so the further we proceed
the more we slip?
What kind of kéngdom the apostles had framed in their
imaginations is not easy to conceive. There was something
that might seem to cherish that opinion about a temporal
reign, wherewith they had been leavened from their very
Oia (Cor xi: 22: P Succah, fol. 52. 1.
12 Hebrew and Talmudical (Chri:
childhood ; and that was, that not only Christ, but several
of the saints, had risen from the dead; and that the Aingdom
of the Messiah should commence from some resurrection,
they had already learnt from some of their own traditions.
But in what manner should Christ now reign?! His body was
made a spiritual body. Now he appears; anon he vanisheth,
and disappears again: and how will this agree with mortals ¢
The traditions, indeed, suppose the Messiah would be per-
haps 8°57 \ one of the dead: but when he should revive,
he was to have the same kind of body with other men. This
was apprehended by some4, that those dead, mentioned Ezek.
xxxvil, did revive, returned into the land of Israel, married
wives and begat children: “ὁ I myself,’ saith R. Fudah Ben
Betirah, ‘am one of their offspring; and these very phylac-
teries', which my grandfather bequeathed to me, belonged to
+
them.” Now, who is it can so much as imagine what
opinion the apostles conceived concerning the bodily pre-
sence of Christ in this Aingdom of his of which they had been
dreaining ?
Ver. 12: Σαββάτου ἔχον ὁδόν: A sabbath days journey. |
I have already said something in Luke xxiv concerning ὦ
sabbath day's journey. 1 will add a few things in this places.
“ Whosoever goeth beyond the bounds of the city on the
sabbath day, let him be scourged : because it is said, ‘ Let no
one go out from his place on the seventh day:’ this place is
the bounds of the city. The law doth not determine the
compass' of these bounds. But the wise men define these
bounds from without to be about twelve miles, according to
the Israelites’ camp: for Moses our master said unto them,
‘ Ye shall not go out of your camp.’ However, it is ordained
by the words of the scribes, ‘ Let no one go out of the city
beyond two thousand cubits. For two thousand cubits are
the suburbs of the city. From whence we may learn that it
is lawful to walk clear through the city on the sabbath day,
be it as spacious as Nineveh, and whether it be walled or no.
He may also expatiate beyond the city to the length of two
thousand cubits from every side of it. But if a man go beyond
these two thousand cubits, they scourge him MWD NID
4 In Sanhedr. fol. 92. 2. S Maimonid. Schabb. cap. 27.
¥ Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 688. τ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 637.
Ohis1..12.| Kuereitations upon the Acts. 13
with the scourge of rebellion; that is, if he go so far as twelve
miles: but if he go out of the city beyond twelve miles, though
it be but the space of one cubit, he is scourged according to
the law.” Let us comment a little.
I. It was commonly believed, that the Israelites’ encamping
in the wilderness was about twelve miles square : “‘ The" length
of the Israelites’ camp was twelve miles, and the breadth
twelve miles.”
‘The breadth of the waters” (that is, those that were di-
vided in Jordan) ‘‘ was twelve miles, answerable to the camp
of Israel, according as our Rabbins expound it*. The waters
which came down from above stood and rose up upon a heap,
Josh. 1.16. And what was the height of these waters? It
was twelve miles’ height upon twelve miles’ breadth, according
to the camp of Israel.” Where the Gloss is, ‘‘ The camp of
the Israelites was twelve miles upon twelve miles” (that is,
twelve miles square): “and they passed over Jordan accord-
ing to their encampings ; viz. the whole breadth of their camp
passed over together for the space of twelve milesy.”. Hence
that in Hveros. Sotah2, “ Adam and Zarethan” (i. 6. the place
from whence and the place to which the waters were divided)
‘were distant from one another twelve miles.”
Whether they took the number of twelve miles precisely,
from allusion to the twelve tribes, or from any other reason
retained that exact number and space, is not easy to deter-
mine: yet this is certain, that the Israelites’ camp was very
spacious, and had a very large compass, especially granting a
mile’s distance between the first tents and the tabernacle.
And indeed, as to this commonly received opinion of the
camp’s being twelve miles square on every side, we shall
hardly believe it exceeds the just proportion, if we consider
the vast numbers of that people: nay, it might rather seem a
wonder, that the encamping of so many myriads, or rather so
many hundred thousands, should not exceed that proportion.
Place the tabernacle in the midst; allow the space of one mile
from each side of it (im which space were the tents of the
Levites), before you come to the first tents of the Israelites ;
and then guess what length and breadth and thickness all
the other tents would take up.
« Targ. Jonath. in Numb. ii. Y Sotah, fol. 34. 1.
* Kimch. in Josh. iii. τό. Z Fol. 21. 4.
14 Hebrew and Talinudical | Ch. τ 12.
II. It is supposed lawful for any one to have walked upon
the sabbath day, not only from the outmost border of the
camp to the tabernacle, but also through the whole camp
from one end of it to the other; because the whole encamp-
ing was of one and the same, and not a diverse jurisdiction.
According to that known canon concerning NZ AVY
commixion or communion of courts. And hence it is that Mai-
monides makes such mention of twelve miles, and the lawful-
ness of walking on the sabbath day through any city, be it as
spacious as Nineveh: itself.
III. But when the people were disposed of, and placed in
their several cities and towns in the land of Canaan, and the
face of things quite changed from what it had been in the
wilderness, it seemed good to the wise men to cireumscribe
the space of a sabbath day’s journey within the bounds of two
thousand cubits. And that partly because the inmost borders
of the Israelites’ tents were so much distant from the taber-
nacle, as may be gathered from Josh. ili.4: and partly because
it is said, Num. xxxv. 4, 5, “ From the wall of the city ye shall
measure a thousand cubits; and from without the city ye shall
measure two thousand cubits.” Now, “a thousand cubits are
the suburbs of the city, and two thousand cubits are the bounds
of the sabbath.” ;
IV. As to these words therefore of the evangelist now be-
fore us, we must suppose they do not define the exact dis-
tance of the mount of Olives from Jerusalem, which indeed
was but five furlongs>; nor do they take in the town of
Bethany within the bounds of the sabbath, which was distant
fifteen furlongs, John xi. 18: but they point out that place of
the mount where our Saviour ascended into heaven, viz. that
place where that tract of the mount of Olives ceased to be
called Bethphage, and began to be called Bethany. Con-
cerning which we have discoursed more largely in another
place.
Ver.13:’AvéBnoar εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον" They® went up into an upper
room. | mdyy > to an upper room, in Talmudie language.
I. It was very familiar with that nation, that when they
were to concern themselves with the law, or any parts of reli-
ἃ Sotah, fok 27. » Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 6.
© English folio edit., vol. ii. p.638. Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 689.
Ch. 1. 13.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 15
gion, out of the synagogue, they went up rmbyd into an upper
room, some uppermost part of the house. ‘“ Abniah4, a very
rich man, invited Rabban Johanan Ben Zacchai, and his dis-
ciples, and Nicodemus, ὅσο. to a feast, which he made at the
circumcision of his son. When the feast was done, Rabban
Johanan and his disciples went up 77 a5 into an upper room,
and read, and expounded, till the fire shone round about them
as when the law was given at mount Sinai. Abniah was amazed
at the honour that-was given to the law, and so devoted his
son to the law.” Take notice that 773) an upper room is
distinet from a dining room, where they dined and supped ;
and there it was they handled the law and divine things: to
which if that avéyeor, large upper room, mentioned Mark xiv.
15, and Luke xxii.12, where our Saviour celebrated the Pass-
over, had any affinity, it seems to have been something differ-
ent from a common dining room.
If. Such a kind of ὑπερῷον, or upper room, I presume, was
the Beth-Midras of this or that Rabbin. R. Simeone saith,
“1 saw aby Ξ the sons of the upper room, that they were
few in number ;’” that is (if I take the word πον aright),
the sons or disciples of Beth-Midras: but I will not contend in
this matter.
“Thosef are the traditions which they delivered mmby
in the upper room of Hananiah, Ben Hezekiah, Ben Garon :”
and many instances of that kind. Of this kind seems that
upper chamber at Troas, mentioned Acts xx. 8. And so,
where we meet with the church in such or such a one’s house,
it seems to look this way: viz. some upper part of the house,
sequestered on purpose for the assembling of the church, in
the same manner that the Beth-Midras was set apart for the
meeting of the disciples of this or that Rabbin. And as the
Beth-Midras was always in the house of some Rabbin, so pro-
bably, for the most part, were these churches in the house of
some minister or doctor of the church. Was not Aquila such
a one, in whose house we find a church mentioned, Rom. xvi.
5, compared with Acts xviii. 26? Was not Philemon such a
one, Phil. ver. 2 ?
Ver.15: "Qs ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι: About an hundred and twenty.|
4 Juchasin, fol. 23. 2. © Juchasin, fol. 45. 2.
f Hieros. Schab. fol. 3. 3.
16 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. 1. 15.
The same number was Kzra’s great synagogue. “ Ezra®
was the head of all: he was the twenty-second receiver of
traditions, Dt “ap ΠΥ ak bs5 and his whole San-
hedrim consisted of a hundred and twenty elders.’ There was
no stated council in any city under this number. ‘* How?
many men are requisite in a city that it might be capable of
having a council settled in it? A hundred and twenty. What
is their office! Three-and-twenty are to make up the number
of the lesser Sanhedrim. And there are three classes of
twenty-three: behold, there are ninety-two. There are ten
vova to be at leisure for the synagogue: behold, there are a
hundred and two. Two [2°74 by (the plaintiff and the de-
Jendant) who have business before the Sanhedrim : 1 (IW
two crafty witnesses” (those who by their counter evidence
might implead the witnesses, if possible, of a lie): “ὩΣ ἢ
ΩΣ to counter-witnesses against those counter-witnesses. Two
scribes. Two chazanim, two collectors of the alms, and a third
to distribute. SW ἃ physician (the Gloss hath it, one to cir-
cumcise infants). YIN an artificer, chirurgeon (the Gloss is,
one to let blood). sbnb a libellary, i.e. one that was to write
bills of espousals, divorces, contraets, &e. and a schoolmaster ;
behold, a hundred and twenty.” If you will pick any thing
out of this parity of number, you may. However, certainly,
the number of those we have now before us ought always to
occur to mind when we read such passages as these: “ They
were all with one accord in one place,” Acts ii.1: “ They were
all scattered abroad excepting the apostles,” chap. vilil.1. So
chap. xi. 19, &c.
Besides the twelve apostles and seventy-two disciples, who
can tell us who those other thirty-six were that were to fill
up the number? what kind of men, of what degree and
quality, who, though they were neither of the number of
the twelve apostles, nor the seventy disciples, yet were ad-
mitted members of that great and holy consistory ‘ Reason
itself seems against it, that any women should be accounted
of that number. As also it is plain, that though there were
more in the city that believed, yet these were, for some special
δ᾽ Juchasin, fol. 13. 2.
h Sanhedr. fol. 17. 2. Maimon. Sanhedr. cap. t.
I ὙΉΉΥΥΥΜφσΤσΜΥ στο τ .΄',ᾳῃ,ῃ,ᾳῃᾳῃ,ῃ,ῃ΄ νυν. ΨΨΘΒΝΩΝ
Ch. i. 18.] Huercitations upon the Acts. 17
cause and reason, ascribed into this peculiar fellowship and
number. As to the twelve and the seventy we need not in-
quire: as to the rest, leti us see whether it may not be inti-
mated to us, ver. 21, that they had been the followers of
Christ, in company with the others, from the very first of his
publishing the gospel.
That Peter should be always at the head of them, and have
the chief parts in the whole history, as their proloeutor and
chief actor, must be attributed,
1. To his seniority, he being older than any of the other
twelve. And whereas, under this notion of his age, he had
been their chief speaker all the while that our Saviour con-
versed amongst them, it was but just and reasonable he
should hold the same place and quality now that their Lord
was gone.
2. To his repentance. And what was but necessary, that
he who had so seandalously fallen might, by his future zeal
and religion, as much as. possible give some considerable testi-
monies both of his repentance and recovery.
3. He was designed to the apostleship of circumcision as
the chief minister: it was fit therefore‘ that he should be
chief amongst those of the circumcision. But when we style
him the chief minister of the circumcision, we do not dream
of any primacy he had over the other ministers of the circum-
cision; only that the greatest work and the widest space of
that ministry fell to his lot, viz. Mesopotamia, or the Babylo-
nish and Assyrian captivity, namely, the Jews in Babylon, and
the ten tribes mixed with them. And when we speak of him
as acting the chief and principal parts, we do not believe the
rest of the apostles idle; we know they were endowed with
equal authority, an equal gift of miracles, equal number of
tongues, equal wisdom, and an equal power of preaching the
gospel; but that he, for the reasons above mentioned, had
shown his zeal, industry, and activity, in some ways and mea-
sures very extraordinary.
Ver. 18: Kat πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησε μέσος: Falling head-
long, he burst asunder in the midst.) The Vulgate and Erasmus
have it, Suspensus crepuit medius: Being hanged, he cracked
asunder in the midst. So the Italian translation: Appicato
i English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 639. k Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 690.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL, TY. ο
18 Hebrew and Talinudical [Ch. 1. 18.
crepo pel mezzo ; rendering St. Matthew rather than St. Luke ;
and I question, indeed, whether they do rightly take the mind
of St. Matthew, while they so strictly confine the word ἀπήγ-
taro to being hanged. 1 have produced my conjecture con-
cerning this business at Matt. xxvil; viz. that the devil, imme-
diately after Judas had cast back his money into the temple,
caught him up into the air, strangled him, threw him head-
long, and dashed him in pieces upon the ground. For,
Τ. It is questionable enough, whether the word ἀπήγξατο do
necessarily and singly denote he hanged himself; and not as
well, he was hanged or choked; and, indeed, whether the word
always supposes the halter: how the learned Heinsius hath
defended the negative, we may consult him upon this place,
and upon Matt. xxvii.
Il. If Judas hanged himself, as is commonly believed, and
commonly so painted, how could it be said of him that ἐγέ-
veto πρηνὴς, he fell headlong? Grant that, upon the breaking
of the halter, he might fall upon the ground ; yet what matter
is it whether he fell on his face, or that he fell backward ?
But if πρηνὴς be derived ἀπὸ τοῦ προνεύξιν, as the grammarians
would have it, it may be headlong as well as upon the face; that
is, as upon the face is opposed τῷ ὑπτίῳ, to supine or backward.
III. Histories tell us of persons strangled by the devil.
That is a known passage in Tob. 11. 8: “ Asmodeus ΣΤ (so
‘it is in the Heb. of P. Fagius) strangled Sarah’s seven hus-
bands,” &c.; and it may be the less wonder, if the devil,
being corporally seated in this wretch, should at last strangle
him.
IV. There are also histories of the devil snatching up some
into the air, and carrying them away with him. Now, of all
mortals, no wretch did ever more deserve so direful a fate than
this traitor ; nor did any other death become the most impious
of all mankind than the dreadfullest the devil (to whom he was
entirely given up) could inflict; as what might be of most
horror to himself and terror to others.
V. The words immediately following, “That this was known
to all the dwellers at Jerusalem,” ver.19, argue it was a thing
of no common and ordinary event, and must be something
more than hanging himself; which was an accident not so
very unusual in that nation.
Ch. 1.19, 25.] Haxercitations upon the Acts. 19
Kal ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ: And all his bowels
gushed out.) “ A! certain Syrian saw a man, who fell from
the roof of his house upon the ground; ΟἿΣ ΓΙ ΟΣ MYypy
ΓΤ his belly burst, and his bowels gushed out. The Θ᾽ μη
brought the son of him that had thus falien, and slew him be-
fore him, OVW Y APTN. But at length it seemed so.” [Az
deinceps visum.] The Gloss™ telleth us, he did not strike or
hurt the boy ; but made as if he would have killed him: be-
cause he, loath to meddle with the man’s bowels himself, for
fear lest he should any way displace them, seemed as if he had
killed the boy; that so the father, upon the sight of it, groan-
ing and fetching strong and deep sighs, might draw in his
bowels into their proper place again.
The devil had dwelt in this wretch for three days, or there-
about, from the time that he had entered him upon his receiving
the sop, John xiii; and now, by a horrid eruption tearing out
his bowels, he goes out again.
Ver.19: ’Axeddaua Aceldama.] S07 bon A field of blood :
so called, both as it had been purchased with the price of
blood, and as it had been watered with the blood of this traitor ;
for hither I presume the devil had thrown him headlong: and
upon this event it was that the priests were moved to pur-
chase this very field; and so, in a twofold sense, it might be
said of this traitor, that ἐκτήσατο τὸ χωρίον, he purchased a field,
both as it was bought with his money and sealed with his
blood. If Ace/dama was in that quarter of the city that it is
now shown in to strangers, that is, between the east and the
south, as Borchard tells us, then it was in the valley of Hin-
nom, or thereabout.
Ver. 25: Πορευθῆναι εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ἴδιον: That he might
go to his own place.| Balaam™ “ went to his own place, that
is, into hell.” “ It® is not said of the friends of Job, that
they, each of them, came from his own house, or his own city,
or his own country, but from his own place, ἜΣ =) Pia)
os 73 sb that is, from ὦ place cut out for him in hell.’ The
Gloss is, “from his own place, that is, from hell, appointed
for idolaters.” ‘“‘ Whosoever betraysP an Israelite into the
1 Cholin, fol. 56. 2. n Baal Turim, in Num. xxiv. 25.
m English folio edition, vol. il. ° Midras Coheleth, fol. 100. 4.
p. 640. P Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 691.
σ 2
20 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. 1.29.
hands of the Gentiles, hath no part in the world to come 4.”
If so, then where must he have his place that betrayed the
very Messiah of Israel ?
Ver. 23: Ἰωσὴφ τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαβᾶν: Joseph called
Barsabas.| 1. Amongst the Jews, 9D} Jose, and DY Joseph,
are one and the same name. “ NO 2 ae OP ‘ ON
sons PR. Jose saith, ‘ In Babylon, the Syrian tongue,” &e.;
which being recited in Sofahs is thus expressed, “FD ‘sb
SOAS nw 95 R. Joseph said, ‘In Babylon,” &e. So
soy Ἢ BR. Jose, in Hieros. Jom Tobh', is fateh = FR: Joseph in
Bab. Berac.™ ἘΠῚ ἸΞ slo) Jose Ben Johanan in Avoth*, is
Joseph Ben Johanan in Maimonides’s preface to Misnah. And
so Ἰωσῆς in Matt. xxvii. 56, and Mark vi. 3, is rendered in
the Vulgate, Joseph. See Beza upon the place now be-
fore us.
II. I would therefore suspect that this Joseph, who is
ealled Barsabas, might be Joses the son of Alpheus, the
brother of James the Less, who, as James also, was called the
Just: nor could we suppose any a more likely candidate for
the apostleship than he who was brother to so many of the
apostles, and had been so oftentimes named with James.
What the word Barsabas might signify, it is not so easy to
determine; because Sabas may agree with so many Hebrew
words; the nomenclators render it, the son of * conversion,’ son
of ‘quiet,’ son of an ‘oath? (But, by the way, who ean tell
what etymology the Arabie interpreter in Bib. Polygl. re-
ferred to when he rendered it [NDSYVA Larzaphan?) 1
would write it 82D 72 Bar Saba (which also the Erpenian
Arab. does) i.e. ὦ wise son: unless you had rather son of an
old man. There is also another Barsabas, chap. xv. 22; “ Judas
surnamed Barsabas :” by whom if Judas the apostle be to be
understood, let Joses and he (both Barsabas) be brothers,
both of them 83D “a, the sons of old Alpheus.
4 Maimon. in Covel umazzi. 8 Fol. 49. 2. t Fol. 61. 3.
cap. 8. a Fol. 19.1.
τ Bava Kama, fol. 83. 1. x Cap. 1. hal. 4.
Chow] Evercitations upon the Acts. Q1
CHAP Thy
Ver. τ: Καὶ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς Πεν-
τηκοστῆς" And when the day of Pentecost was fully come.]
I. This word Pentecost seems to be taken into use by the
Hellenist Jews to signify this feast ; which also almost all the
versions retain, the Western especially, and, amongst the
Eastern, the Syriac and Ethiopic. The Hebraizing Jews
commonly call this feast by the name of MAxy; from which
one of the Arabic translations differs very little, when it
renders it in this place wards: ΓΝ Lise D1"; where
the letter ἃ is only inserted; the other omits the word wholly,
and only hath γον Ὁ", the day of the fifty.
II. It is well enough known that ΓΛ). in the holy Serip-
tures, was a holiday, Levit. xxii. 36; Deut. xvi. 8; 2 Kings
x. 20: and the reason why the Jews so peculiarly appro-
priate it-to the feast of Pentecost seems to be this; because
this feast consisted in one solemn day, whereas the feast of
Passover and of Tabernacles had more days. “ As2 the days
of the feast are seven. KR. Chaija saith, ‘ Because the Pente-
cost is but for one day, is the morning so too? They say
unto him, ‘Thou arguest from a far-fetched tradition”” Where
the Gloss hath it, “That this fast is but for one day, we learn
from the very word Fy.” “ The® men of the town Ma-
heesia are strong of heart, for they see the glory of the law
twice in the year.’ The Gloss is, “ Thither all Israel is
gathered together in the month Adar, that they may hear
the traditions concerning that passover in the school of Rabh
Asai; and in the month Elul, that they may hear the tra-
ditions concerning the feast of Tabernacles. But they were
not so gathered together MN COP NON IPNY MAY.
at the feast of Pentecost, because that is not above one day.”
Hence that Baithusean may be the better believed in his
dispute with Rabban Johanan?, “ Moses our master (saith
he) will love Israel; S87 AMS OY MAW wT and he
knows that the feast of Pentecost is but for one day.”
III. And yet there is mention® of a second holiday in
Υ English folio edition, vol. 11. p. a Beracoth, fol. 17. 2.
641. b Menacoth, fol. 65.1.
Z Beresh. Rabba, fol. 114, 3. ¢ Sanhed. fol. 26. 2.
Q2 Hebrew and Talmudical [Cheat
Pentecost, bw PONT JW OVA NWD? WPT WAP IT
NOD DD MAW mrp Labh Papa hath shammatized those
bearers that bury the dead on the first feast-day of Pentecost, &e. :
where the mention of the “ first feast-day’ hints to us that
there is a second, which we find elsewhere asserted in express
terms. ‘“ R. Simeon’ Ben Jozadek saith, ‘In eighteen days
any single person repeats the Hallel over ;’ that is to say, in
the seven days of the feast of tabernacles, in the eight days
of the feast of dedication, the first day of the passover, and
the first day of Pentecost. But in the captivity they did it in
one-and-twenty days. In the nine days of the feast of taber-
nacles, in the eight days of the feast of dedication, in the two
feast-days of the passover, FAY by om on UN
and the two feast-days of Pentecost.”
Whereas it is said ΥὙΤ ἼΔΩ in the captivity, the difficulty is
answered ; for although in the land of Israel there was but
one solemn day in the feast of Pentecost, yet amongst the
Jews in foreign countries there were two; which also hap-
pened in other solemnities. For instance, within Palestine
they kept but one day holy in the beginning of the year 5,
viz. the first day of the month Tisri; but in Babylon and
other foreign countries they observed both the first and the
second day. And the reason was, because at so great a dis-
tance from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, they could not be
exactly certain of the precise day, as it had been stated by
the Sanhedrim ; they observed, therefore, two days, that by
the one or the other they might be sure to hit upon the
right.
IV. God himself did indeed institute but one holiday in
the feast of Pentecost, Levit. xxiii: and therefore is it more
peculiarly called MEY a solemn day, because it had but one
feast-day. And yet that feast hath the name of 371 and 59,
the same titles that the feast of tabernacles and the passover
had, Exod. xxii. 14, &e.: and all the males appeared in this
feast as well as in the others; nor was this feast without its
Chagigah any more than the rest. So that however the first
day of Pentecost only was the holy and solemn day, yet the
feast itself was continued for seven days. So the doctors in
ἃ Erachin, fol. 10. 1. © Leusden’s edition, yol. ii. p. 692.
Ch. i. 1.] Eeercitations upon the Acts. 93
Rosh Hashanahf; “ἘΠ. Oshaiah saith, ‘ Whence comes it that
ΤΣ the Pentecost hath mown compensations for all the
seven days!’ Because the Scripture saith, Man 3M
In the feast of unleavened bread, PAYIBWTT ATA and in the
feast of weeks, IDIOM AND) and im the feast of tabernacles.
He compares the feast of weeks (i. e. Pentecost) with the
feast of unleavened bread. That hath compensations for all
the seven days, Ὁ 59 pradwn ab wy my iawn an ἮΝ
so the feast of weeks (i. e. Pentecost) hath compensations for all
the seven days.” They called that poown compensations,
when any one not having made his just offerings in the be-
ginning of the feast, repaired and compensated this negligence
or defect of his by offering in any other of the seven days.
And thus much may suffice as to this whole feast in general.
Now as to the very day of Pentecost itself, it may not be
amiss to add something.
I. It is well known that the account of weeks and days
from the Passover to Pentecost took its beginning from, and
depended upon, the day of offering the sheaf of the first-
fruits, Levit. xxiii. 15. But through the ambiguity of the
phrase NAW MIWA the morrow of the sabbath, there hath
arisen a controversy betwixt the scribes and Baithuseans,
whether by the sabbath ought to be understood the weekly
sabbath (or, as the scribes commonly called it, M°WNIA MAW,
the sabbath of the creation), ov whether it should be understood
of the sabbatical day, i.e. the first day of the seven days of
passover, which was the solemn day, Exod. xii. 16. The
Baithuseans contend vehemently for the former, and will not
have the sheaf offered but after the weekly sabbath. As
suppose the first day of the passover should fall out upon the
first day of the week, they would stay till the whole week
with the sabbath day was run out; and then, on the morrow
of that sabbath, 1. 6. the first day of the following week, they
offered the sheaf. But the scribes, very differently, keep
strictly to the sixteenth day of the month Nisan for offering
the firstfruits without any dispensation, after the sabbatical
day or the first day of the feast is over. And amongst other
arguments by which they strengthen their opinion, those two
f Fol. 4. 2. & English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 642.
D4. Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. ii. 1.
different places of Scripture, Exod. xii. 15, “Seven days ye
shall eat unleavened bread,” and Deut. xvi. 8, “ Six days
thou shalt eat unleavened bread,” they, according to the sense
they have, do thus reconcile, ‘ seven days, indeed, you shall
eat unleavened bread ;’ that is, unleavened bread of the old
wheat, on the first day of the feast, the sheaf being not yet
offered; and unleavened bread of the new wheat, the remain-
ing six days, after you have offered the firstfruits },
Ij. If the day of the firstfruits be to be taken into the
number of the fifty days, which the authors now quoted
do clearly enough affirm out of those words, Deut. xvi. g,
“ Number the seven weeks to thyself ΓΞ won “TWO,
when thou beginnest to put the sickle into the corn ;” then it val
appear plain enough to any one that upon whatsoever day
of the week the sheaf-offering should fall, on that day of the
week the day of Pentecost would fall too. And hence the
Baithuseans contended so earnestly that the MAW NINA
the morrow after the sabbath (on which it is commanded that the
sheaf of the firstfruits should be offered) should be understood
of the first day of the week, that so the day of Pentecost
might fall out to be the first day of the week too: not so
much in honour of that day (which is indeed our “ Lord’s
day”), but that the Pentecost might have the more feast-days ;
DvD" WwW Pawns beau Ww 5 that the Israelites might
delight themselves for two days together, as one of them speaks
out their meaning}.
III. As to the year, therefore, we are now upon, wherein
Christ ascended, and the Holy Ghost came down ; the sheaf-
offering was on the sabbath day. or the paschal lamb was
eaten on Thursday; so that Friday (on which day our Sa-
viour was crucified) was the first day of the feast, the sab-
batical, or holiday. And the following day, which was their
sabbath, was the δευτέρα, the second, on which the sheaf was
offered whilst Christ lay in the grave. And for this very
reason was it said to be ἡμέρα μεγάλη τοῦ σαββάτου, a high
day of the sabbath, John xix. 31.
IV. Let us inquire, therefore, whether the day of Pente-
cost fell out on their sabbath day. I know, indeed, that the
h Siphra, fol. 51.1. Pesikta, fol. 20. 1. Menac. fol. 66. 1.
i Menac. fol. 65. 1.
Ch. i. 1.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 25
fifty days are reckoned by some from the resurrection of our
Lord; and then Pentecost, or the fiftieth day, must fall on
the first day of the week, that is, our Lord’s day: but if we
number the days from the common epocha, that is, from the
time of offering the sheaf of firstfruits (which account doubt-
less St. Luke doth follow), then the day of Pentecost fell out
upon the Jewish sabbath. And here, by the good leave of
some learned men, it may be questioned, ‘ Whether the
Holy Ghost was poured out upon the disciples on the very
day of Pentecost, or no. The reasons of this question may
be these :
I. The ambiguity of the words themselves, ἐν τῷ συμπλη-
podabark τὴν ἡμέραν, which may be either rendered, as we have
done in English, when the day of Pentecost was fully come ; or
as they in the Italian, Εἰ nel finire del giorno della Pentecoste,
q.d. when it was fully gone. So that the phrase leaves it
undetermined, whether the day of Pentecost was fully come
or fully gone: and what is there could be alleged against it,
should we render it in the latter sense !
11. It is worthy our observation, that Christ the antitype,
in answering some types that represented him, did not tie
himself up to the very day of the type itself for the fulfilling
of it, but put it off to the day following. So it was not upon
the very day of the Passover, but the day following, that
20009 αὐτὸς Τάσχα ἡμῶν, Christ our Passover was sacrificed for
us|: it was not on the very day that the sheaf of the first-
fruits was offered, but the day following, that Christ became
ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων, the firstfruits of them that slept™,
So also did he institute the Christian sabbath not the same
day with the Jewish sabbath wherein God had finished the
work of his creation, but" the day following, wherein Christ
had finished the work of his redemption. And so it was
agreeable to reason, and to the order wherein he disposed of
things already mentioned, that he should indulge that myste-
rious gift of the Holy Ghost, not upon the day of the Jewish
sabbath, but the day following, the day of his own resurrec-
tion from the grave; that the Spirit should not be poured
out upon the same day wherein the giving of the law was
k Leusden’s edition, vol.ii. p. 693. m x Cor. xv. 20.
ey Cony 7 n English folio edit., vol. 11. p.643.-
26 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. ii. 1.
commemorated, but upon a day that might keep up the com-
memoration of himself for ever.
171. We can hardly invent a more fit and proper reason
why upon this day they should be ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ
αὐτὸ, all with one accord in one place, than that they were so
gathered together for the celebration of “ the Lord’s day.” So
that although we have adventured to call it into question,
whether the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the very day of
the Jewish Pentecost, yet have we not done it with any love
to contradiction, but as having considerable reason so to do,
and with design of asserting to ‘the Lord’s day” its just honour
and esteem: for on that day, beyond all controversy, the
Holy Ghost did come down amongst them.
"Hoav ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδόν, ὅσο. They were all with one accord,
&e.] Who were these ἅπαντες, these a// here mentioned ?
probably the “hundred and twenty” spoken of chap. i. 15:
and the connexion falls in well enough with the foregoing
story. ‘Those a// were together, when the election of the
twelfth apostle was propounded, and when the choice was
made too: and therefore, why the αὐ in this place ought not
to have reference to this very number also, who can allege
any reason? Perhaps you will say, This reason may be given
why it should not; namely, that ‘all those that were here
assembled were endued with the gift of tongues; and who
will say that all the hundred and twenty were so gifted? I do
myself believe it, and that for these reasons:
I. All the rest were likely to publish the gospel in foreign
countries as well as the apostles ; and therefore was it neces-
sary that they also should be endowed with foreign tongues.
II. The apostles themselves imparted the same gift by the
imposition of hands to those whom they ordained the min-
isters of particular churches. It would seem unreasonable
therefore that those extraordinary persons that had been all
along in company with Christ and his apostles, and were to be
the great preachers of the gospel in several parts of the world,
should not be enriched with the same gift.
III. It is said of the seven deacons, that they were πλήρεις
Πνεύματος ἁγίου, full of the Holy Ghost, even before they were
chosen to that office: which doth so very well agree with
what is said in this part of the story, ver. 4, ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαν-
ὲξ
Ch. in. 2. | Exercitations upon the Acts. v
τες Πνεύματος ἁγίου, they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
that we can hardly find out a more likely time or place
wherein these deacons had been thus replenished, than when
the apostles themselves were so; that is, upon the coming
down of the Holy Ghost.
IV. The dignity and prerogative of the apostles above the
rest of the disciples did not so much consist in this gift of
tongues being appropriated to themselves; but in this, amongst
other things, that they were capable of conferring this gift
upon others, which the rest could not do. Philip the deacon
doubtless did himself speak with tongues; but he could not
confer this gift to the Samaritans, that they also should speak
with tongues as he did: this was reserved to Peter and to
John the apostles.
V. The Holy Ghost, as to the gift of tongues, fell upon all
that heard Peter’s discourse in the house of Cornelius, chap.
X. 44: It may seem the less strange, therefore, if it should fall
on these also, at this time and in this place.
Ver. 2: Ἦχος ὥσπερ φερομένης πνοῆς βιαίας" A sound as of
a rushing mighty wind.| The sound of a mighty wind, but
without wind ; so also tongues like as of fire, but without fire.
Φερομένης is fitly and emphatically enough added here; but I
question whether ἐπεφέρετο was so properly put by the Greek
interpreters in Gen. 1.2; Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ
ὕδατος, the Spirit of God was carried upon the face of the
waters. And yet the paraphrast and Samaritan copy is much
wider still from the meaning and intention of Moses, when
they render it by ΔΙΌΣ he breathed upon the waters. 1
conceive they might in those words, “ the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters,” have an eye to those
waters that covered the earth; whereas Moses plainly distin-
guisheth between the abyss, that is, the waters that covered
the earth, upon the face of which deep the darkness was, and
those waters which the Spirit of God moved upon, that is, the
waters which were above the firmament, ver.6, 7. And by
the moving or incubation of° the Spirit upon these waters, 1
would rather understand the motion of the heavens, the Spirit
of God turning them about, and by that motion cherishing
the things below as the bird doth by sitting upon its young,
ο English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 644.
28 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. ii. 3, 13.
than of any blowing or breathing of the Spirit or the wind
upon them; or that the Spirit was carried upon the waters as
a wind is upon the sea or upon the land.
Ver. 3P: Διαμεριζύμει αι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός" Cloven tongues
like as of fire.| The confusion of languages was the casting
off of the Gentiles and the confusion of religion: for after
once all other nations excepting that of the Jewish came to
be deprived of the use and knowledge of the Hebrew tongue,
in which language alone the things of true religion and all
divine truth were known, taught, and delivered, it was un-
avoidable but that they must needs be deprived of the know-
ledge of God and religion. Hence that very darkness that
fell upon the Gentile world by that confusion of tongues con-
tinued upon them to this very time. But now behold the
remedy; and that wound that had been inflicted by the con-
fusion is now healed by the gift of tongues ; that veil that
was spread over all nations at Babel was taken away at
mount Zion, Isa. xxv.7. We meet with a form of prayer in
the Jewish writings which was used on the solemn fast of the
ninth month Ab, of which this is one clauses: “ Have mercy,
O God, upon the city that mourneth, that is trodden down
and desolate; TANS Ny TAN WND TANI ὍΝ 5
because thou didst lay it waste by fire, and by fire wilt build ut
up again.” If the Jews expect and desire their Jerusalem
should be rebuilt by fire, let them direct their eyes towards
these fiery tongues; and acknowledge both that the building
commenced from that time, and the manner also, how only it
is to be restored.
Ver. 13: Γλεύκους μεμεστωμένοι: These men are full of new
wine.| ‘ Rabba saith, ΒΞ WII? WPS AYN A man
is bound to make himself so mellow on the feast of Purim, that
he shall not be able to distinguish between, Cursed be Haman
and, Blessed be Mordeeait.””? “Rabbah and R. Zeira feasted
together on the feast of Purim and YOOI58 they were sweet-
ened, or made very mellow.” The Gloss is, ΩΣ WD)
and they were sweetened, i.e. they were drunk. So that the
γλεύκους μεμεστωμένοι εἰσὶ is nothing but what they were wont
to express in their common dialect, V3DIN they are sweetened,
that is, ave drunk.
P Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 694. 4 Hieros. Taanith, fol. 65. 3.
r [Megillah, fol. 7. 2.]
Ch. 11. 15.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 29
But may we not rather judge those drunk who, by saying
the apostles were full of new wine, imputed that sudden skill
of theirs in so many languages to wine and intemperance ?
The Rabbins, indeed, mention a demon DIP ΤΡ Cordicus,
who possesseth those that are drunk with new wine™. . But
is he so great a master of art and wit that he can furnish
them with tongues too? These scoffers seem to be of the
very dregs and scum of the people; who, knowing no other
language but their own mother tongue, and not understand-
ing what the apostles said while they were speaking in foreign
languages, thought they said nothing but mere babble and
gibberish.
Ver. 15: Ἔστι yap ὥρα τρίτη τῆς ἡμέρας" It is but the third
hour of the day.| That is, with us, nine o’clock in the morning ;
before which time, especially on the sabbath and other feast-
days, the Jews were not wont so much as to taste any thing
of meat or drink, nor, indeed, hardly of other days. “ Thiss
was the custom of the religious of old, first to say over his
morning prayers on the sabbath day, with those additional
ones in the synagogue, and then go home and take his second
repast :”’ for he had taken his first repast on the evening
before, at the entrance of the sabbath. Nothing might be
tasted before the prayers in the synagogue were finished,
which sometimes lasted even to noon-day ; for so the Gloss
upon the place, “ When they continue in the synagogue
beyond the sixth hour and a half, which is the time of the
great Minchah, (for on a feast-day they delayed their coming
out of the synagogue), then let a man pray his prayer of the
Minchah before he eat, and so let him eat.” And in those
days it was that that commonly obtained, which Targ. in
Koheleth [ Kecles.] noteth* ; roo ΒΞ paypat Wa
Pw FT por svar After they had offered the daily sacrifice
they cat bread in the time of the four hours, i.e. in the fourth
hour. In Bava Mezia" a certain officer of the king’s teach-
eth R. Eleazar the son of R. Simeon how he should * distin-
guish_ betwixt thieves and honest men; “YW YIAS Las
mint “ Go (saith he) into the taberne on the fourth hour, and
τ Gittin, cap. 7. u Fol. 83. 2.
s Maimon. Schab. cap. 30. x English folio edition, vol. ii. p.
t Cap. 10. 16. 645.
90 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. 11. 17, 19.
if thou seest any person drinking wine, and nodding while
he holds his eup in his hand,” &e. Where the Gloss hath
it, ‘‘ The fourth hour was the hour of eating, when every one
went into the taberne, and there ate.” So that these whom
ye deride, O ye false mockers, are not drunk, for it is but the
third hour of the day; that is, it is not yet the time to eat
and drink in.
Ver.i7: Ἔν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις" In the last days.| The
prophet Joel hath it Ἰ2 TN, after these things: Greek,
μετὰ ταῦτα, after these things. Where Kimchi upon the place
hath this note, ΟΣ MAINA THM WO 13 ANS TM
And it shall come to pass “after these things,’ is the same
with καὶ ἔσται ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, it shall come to pass “ in the
last days.” We have elsewhere observed that by the last days
is to be understood the last days of Jerusalem and the Jewish
economy, viz. when the τέλος τοῦ αἰῶνος Ἰουδαϊκοῦ, the end of
the Jewish worldy drew near. And there would be the less
doubt as to this matter if we would frame a right notion of
“ that great and terrible day of the Lord ;” that is, the day
of his vengeance upon that place and nation. Which terror
the Jews, according to their custom and fashion, put far off
from themselves, and devolve it upon Gog and Magog, who
were to be cut off and destroyed.
᾿Εκχεῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματός μου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα" I will pour
out of my Spirit upon all flesh.| The Jews cautiously enough
here, though not so honestly, apply this prophecy and promise
to Israel solely ; as having this for a maxim amongst them,
“That the Holy Ghost is never imparted to any Gentile.”
Hence those of the circumcision that believed were so as-
tonished when they saw that “on the Gentiles also was
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost,” chap. x. 45. But,
with the Jews’ good leave, whether they will or no, the
Gentiles are beyond all question included within such-like
promises as these: “ All flesh shall see the salvation of Godz;”
and, “All flesh shall come and worship before the Lord*,” Ge.
Ver. 19: Καὶ ἀτμίδα καπνοῦ" And vapour of smoke.| The
prophet hath it in the Hebrew wy NVI) and pillars of
smoke. St. Luke follows the Greek ; who, as it should seem,
y Vide Matt. xxiv. 3, and 1 Cor. x.11. |
z Isa. xl. 5. [Luke iii. 6.1 a Isa. Ixvi. 23.
Ch. ii. 23,24.) Hwxercitations upon the Acts. 31
are not very solicitous about that nice distinction between
bon ΓΙ». VAM, ΤῸΝ pillaring smoke, or smoke ascending
like a staff, and way ww7> MHA ἸῺΝ smoke dispersing
itself here and there: a distinction we meet with in Joma? ;
where we have a ridiculous story concerning the curiosity of
the wise men about the ascending up of the smoke of incense.
As to these prodigies in blood, fire, and smoke, I would
understand it of the slaughter and conflagrations that should
be committed in that nation to a wonder by seditious and
intestine broils there. They were monsters rather than in-
stances; than which there could never have been a more pro-
digious presage of the ruin of that nation than that they grew
so cruel within themselves, breathing nothing but mutual
slaughters and desolations.
Ver. 23: Τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἔκδοτον λαβόντες, &e. Him, being delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, &c.| We may
best fetch the reason why St. Peter adds this clause, from
the conceptions of the Jews. Can he be the Messiah, think
they, that hath suffered such things! What! the Messiah
erucified and slain? Alas! how different are these things
from the character of the Messiah! 9235 ΙΑ ΔΝ yn ἣν
sone bs boss ς © To him belong honour, and glory, and pre-
eminence above all kings that have ever been in the world ;
according as all the prophets, from Moses our master (to
whom be peace!) to Malachi (to whom be peace!) have pro-
phesied concerning him.” Is he then the Messiah that was
spit upon, scourged, thrust through with a spear, and cruci-
fied £ “ Yes (saith St. Peter); these things he suffered 174
ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει Θεοῦ, by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God.” And these things had been fore-
told concerning him from Moses to Malachi; so that he was
nevertheless their Messiah, though he suffered these things ;
nor did he, indeed, suffer these things by chance, but by the
determinate counsel of God. What the learned have argued
from this place concerning God's decrees I leave to the
schools.
Ver. 24: Avcas τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου: Having loosed the
b Fol. 38. 1. ¢ Rambam in Artic. fid. Jud. Sanhedr. fol. 121. 1.
4 English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 646.
32 Hebrew and Talinudical (Ch. 11. 27, 29.
pains of death.| Let these ὠδῖνας θανάτου be either the ‘pains’
of death, or the ‘bands’ of death, yet it is doubtful whether
St. Peter might speak only of the death of Christ, or of death
in general: so that the sense may be that God raised hin
up, and, by his resurrection, hath /oosed the bands of death
with respect to others also. But supposing the expression
ought to be appropriated to Christ only, (whom, indeed, they
do chiefly respect), then by ὠδῖνας θανάτου we are not to un-
derstand so much the torments and pangs in the last moments
of death as those bands which followed ; viz. the continued
separation of soul and body, the putrefaction and corruption
of the body in the grave; which two things are those which
St. Peter acquits our Saviour from in the following words.
For however it be a great truth that death is the wages of
sin, yet is it not to be understood so much of those very
pangs whereby the soul and body are disjoined, as the con-
tinuation of the divorce betwixt soul and body in the grave.
Ver. 27: Οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς adov' Thou
wilt not leave my soul in hell.| Τῦ is well known what the word
déns signifies in Greek authors; viz. the state of the dead, be
they just or unjust. And their eternal state is distinguished
not so much by the word itself as by the qualities of the per-
sons. All the just, the heroes, the followers of religion and
virtue, according to those authors, are in dds, hades; but it
is in Elysium, in joy and felicity. All the evil, the wicked,
the unjust, they are in hades too; but then, that is in hell,
in torture and punishment. So that the word hades is not
used in, opposition to heaven, or the state of the blessed ; but
to this world only, or this present state of life: which might
be made out by numberless instances in those authors. ‘The
soul of our Saviour, therefore, κατῆλθεν εἰς ἅδου, descended into
hell; i. e. he passed into the state of the dead ; viz. into that
place in Hades where the souls of good men went. But even
there did not God suffer his soul to abide separate from his
body, nor his body to putrefy in the grave; because it was
impossible for Christ to be holden of those bands of death,
seeing his death was not some punishment of sin, but the
utmost pitch of obedience ; he himself being not only without
sin, but incapable of committing any.
Ver. 29: ᾿Εξὸν εἰπεῖν pera παρρησίας, &e. Let me freely
Ch. ii. 34.] Hzercitations upon the Acts. 33
speak, &c.] It is doubted whether ἐξὸν should be rendered
I may, or let me: if that whiche R. Isaac saith obtained at
that time, viz. “ Those words, ‘my flesh shall rest in hope,’
teach us ayhim atime =! voy now that neither worm nor
insect had any power over David‘; then was it agreeable
enough that St. Peter should by way of preface crave the
leave of his auditory in speaking of David's being putrified
in the grave, and so the word ἐξὸν is well rendered, Jet me.
But 7 may pleaseth me best, and by this paraphrase the
words may be illustrated ; ‘That this passage, ‘Thou shalt not
leave my soul in hell,’ ὅσο. is not to be applied to David himself,
appears in that J may confidently aver concerning him, that
he was dead and buried, and never rose again, but his soul
was left εἰς déov, in the state of the dead, and he saw corrup-
tion: for his sepulchre is with us unto this day, under that
very notion, that it is the sepulchre of David, who died, and
was there buried ; nor is there one syllable any where men-
tioned of the resurrection of his body, or the return of his
soul ἐξ ddov, from the state of the dead.”
I cannot slip over that passages, “ R. Jose Ben R. Ben saith
NAVA MD Wt Yavid died at Pentecost ; and all Israel be-
wailed him, and offered their sacrifices the day following.”
Ver. 345: Εἶπεν 6 Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ pov, &e.] The Lord said
unto my Lord, &c.| Seeing St. Peter doth with so much as-
surance and without scruple apply these words to the Mes-
siah, it is some sign that that comment wherewith the later
Jews have glossed over this place was not thought of or in-
vented at that time; glossing on the words thus: “ The Lord
said unto Abraham, ‘ Sit thou on my right hand.” “ Sem!
the Great said unto Eleazar, ‘When the kings of the east
and of the west came against you, how did you do?’ He said
unto him, pI Tram comand ‘aan ἸῸΝ God
took up Abraham, and made him sit at his right hand: he threw
dust upon them, and that dust was turned into swords ;
stubble, and that stubble was turned into darts: so it is said
in David’s psalm, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at
*” Where the Gloss very cautiously notes
my right hand.
ὁ Leusden’s edit., vol. i. p. 696. h English folio edition, vol. ii. p.
f Midr. Till. fol. 13. 4. 647.
& Hieros. Chagig. fol. 78. 1. i Sanhedr. fol. 108. 2.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. D
34 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. ii. 38.
that these words, “‘ The Lord said unto my Lord,” are the
words of Eleazar, whose lord of right Abraham might be
called.
«Ἢ, Zachariah k, in the name of R. Ismael, saith: God
had a purpose to have drawn the priesthood from Sem, ae-
cording as it is said,‘ He was the priest of the Most High
God. But when he pronounced his blessing of Abraham,
before his blessing of God, God derived the priesthood from
Abraham. For it is said, ‘ And he blessed him, saying,
Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, possessor of
heaven and earth: and blessed be the Most High God.’
Abraham saith unto him, ‘ Doth any one put the blessing of
the servant before the blessing of his lord?’ Immediately
the priesthood was given to Abraham; as it is said, ‘ The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.’ It is
written afterward, ‘Thou art a priest for ever, ΠΣ ὅν
pis ΣΡ [after the order of Melchizedek), by oma by
jae ΣΡ for the words of Medchizedek” (who had not placed
his blessings in due order}. “ And forasmuch as it is writ-
ten, ‘And he was a priest of the Most High God ; it inti-
mates to us that he was a priest, but his seed was not.” Can
we think that this gloss was framed at that time, when St.
Peter so confidently, as though none would oppose him in it,
applied this passage to the Messiah? which also our Saviour
himself did before him to the great doctors of that nation,
and there was not one that opened his mouth against it!.
Ver. 38: Βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ: Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ.| Beza tells us that “this doth not declare the form
of baptism, but the scope and end of it. Yet this clause is
wanting in the Syriac interpreter.” Wherever he might
have got a copy wherein this was wanting, yet is it not so in
other copies. But to let that pass: what he sayeth, that
“this doth not declare the form of baptism,” is, I fear, a
mistake: for at that time they baptized amongst the Jews
in the name of ‘Jesus’ (although among the Gentiles they
baptized ‘ in the name of the Father, and the Son, and Holy
Ghost’), that Jesus might be acknowledged for the Messiah
by them that were baptized: than which nothing was more
k Nedarim, fol. 32. 2. 1 Matt. xxii. 44.
Ch.ji. 41, 42.] Hwvercitations upon the Acts. 35
tenaciously and obstinately denied and contradicted by the
Jews. Let the Jew, therefore, in his baptism own Jesus for
the true Messiah; and let the Gentile in his confess the true
God, three in one.
Ver. 41: Προσετέθησαν ψυχαὶ ὡσεὶ τρισχίλιαι: There were
added about three thousand souls: and chap. iv. 4, ὡσεὶ χιλιάδες
πέντε" about five thousand.] To which I would refer that pass-
sage in Psalm ex. 3, ton DNA MAI WAY Thy people shall
be a willing people in the day of thy power. The day of Christ’s
power was the day of his resurrection, when he had subdued
death and hell; and the day of his ascension, when he was
set at the right hand of God, above all principality and power ;
concerning which the first verse of that psalm speaks. The
story in this place, therefore, is the fulfilling of the prophecy,
ver. 3; and it shows how willing his people were in that day
of his power.
Ver. 42™: Καὶ τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου: And in breaking of
bread.| Breaking of bread was a phrase much in use amongst
the Jews, arising from a custom as much in use among them.
For their dinner began with blessing and breaking of bread.
“ R. Zeira" was sick. R. Abhu came to him, and bound
himself, saying, ‘If R. Zeira recover | will make a festival-
day for the Rabbins.’ He did recover, and he made a feast
for all the Rabbins. “Awad sworn °D When they were going
to dinner, R. Abhu said to R. Zeira, WD b ssumd ‘Master,
begin for us.’ ‘To whom he answered, ses “AD wale 355 Ὁ
rm ‘a ‘Doth not the master remember, or call to mind, that of
R. Johanan, who saith, yea MAN bys The master of the
house breaketh bread ?’?” Where the Gloss upon these words
ΤΑΣ ND ID is this: “ It signifies a feast ; as if he should
have said, ‘ Break bread to us with the blessing, S5ZVATA
He that bringeth forth food out of the earth,” &e. The
Gemara goes on: ‘“ When they came to give the blessing,
R. Abhu said to R. Zeira, ‘ Let the master give the blessing
for us:’ to whom he answered, ‘ Doth not the master call to
mind that of R. Hounah of Babylon, who saith, JAI YLIA
He that breaketh bread giveth the blessing?” And a little after ;
“He that breaketh bread doth not break it before the Amen
m English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 648. . Beracoth, fol. 46. 1.
36 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. ii. 44.
of all that sit down at meat be pronounced ; and that they all
answer Amen to him when he giveth the blessing.” Again in
the same place; “ No one of the guests must taste any thing
till he who breaketh bread hath first tasted.”
«R, Abbae saith, ΓΟ 25 "nw Sy Ἐπ os ayn naw
A man is bound on the sabbath day to break upon two loaves,
because it is written MID OM? double bread,” Exod. xvi. 22.
“ Rabh Issai saith: ‘1 saw Rabh Calina, that he took two
loaves, ἽΝ yas and brake but one”” Instances of this
kind, as to the use of this phrase, are endless.
But now the question is, whether κλάσις ἄρτου, breaking
of bread, in this place, be to be taken in this sense: that is,
for common bread, or hot rather for bread of the holy eucha-
rist ; which question also returns, ver. 46, “ breaking bread
from house to house.” Now, I ask whether 7°42, breaking
of bread, amongst the Jews, was ever used to denote the
whole dinner, or the whole supper? It signifies, indeed,
that particular action by which they began the meal; but I
do not remember that I have any where in the Talmudists
observed the phrase applied to the whole meal of dinner or
supper. ΓΤ was the word by which they commonly ex-
pressed the whole repast: but ΓΙ Ξ breaking bread, never ;
if {am not much deceived. And 1 doubt that of Beza is but
“ gratis dictum,” rather than proved, when he tells us, “ It
came to pass that eating together, and so all the feasts they
were wont to make amongst one another, went under the
name of breaking of bread.” Which if true, I ingenuously
confess my ignorance : but if false, then κλάσις ἄρτου, or break-
ing of bread, in these places we are now upon, must not be
understood of their ordinary eating together, but of the Ku-
charist ; which the Syriac interpreter does render so in express
terms: a parallel to which we have in 1 Cor, x.16; Acts xx. 7.
Ver. 44: Εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά: They had all things common. |
To repeat here what is disputed concerning the Essenes and
Therapeutz, is to say the same thing over and over again:
but what is said of the Jerusalem writers, and is not so ob-
vious, I cannot omit; viz. that they did not hire either houses
or beds in Jerusalem; those things were not mercenary, but
© Schabb. fol. 117. 2.
Ch. iii. 1.] Kuxercitations upon the Acts. 37
lent gratis by the owners to all who came up to the feastP.
The same may be well supposed of their ovens, caldrons,
tables, spits, and other utensils. Also provisions of water
were made for them at the public care and charge4.
CHAP. III.
Ver.1: Ἐπὶ τὴν ὥραν τῆς προσευχῆς τὴν ἐννάτην: At the
hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.| Whether it was the
ninth hour of the same day, wherein about the third the Holy
Ghost had been poured out, must be left to conjecture. This
is certain, that the ninth hour of the day (which with us is three
o'clock in the afternoon) was the ordinary hour as for sacri-
fice, so also for prayer too. As to the hours of sacrifice,
Josephus gives us this accounts: Als τῆς ἡμέρας πρωΐ τε καὶ
περὶ ἐννάτην ὥραν, ἱερουργούντων ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ: Twice a day
(viz. in the morning and at the ninth hour) they offer sacri-
jices on the altar. And concerning the hours of prayer the
Talmudists thust; “ R. Jose Ben R. Chaninah saith, The
patriarchs appointed the prayers. R.Joshua Ben Levi saith,
They appointed them according to the daily sacrifices. Morn-
ing prayer is till the fourth hour. The prayer of the Minchah
or evening is till the evening. Which is the great Minchah ?
That from the sixth hour and a half. Which is the less
Minchah ? From the ninth hour and a half,” &e.
They distinguish betwixt the afternoon prayers and the
evening prayers ; although part of them, if not all, were one
and the same. For whereas the precise time for recital of
the phylacteries and the prayers annexed for the evening,
was not but at the entering in of night, yet they recited them
in their prayers at the Minchah. MUence that dispensation in
the Gloss in Beracoth"; ‘ The recital of the Shemaa in bed is
the foundation ; that is, after that the stars have begun to
appear: and so it is in the Jerusalem Talmud. If any one
recite them before that time, he doth* not do his duty. If it
be thus, then why do we say our phylactery prayers in the
P Joma, fol. 12. 1. Megill. fol. son, p.614. 1. 16.] [xiv. 4. 3.]
2051. t Beracoth, fol. 26. 1, 2.
4 Shekalim, cap. 5. a Fol, 2: 1.
t English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 649. x Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 698.
s Antiq. lib. xiv. cap. 7. [Hud-
38 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. iii. 2, ὅσο.
synagogue! It is that we may continue in prayer because of
the words of the law.”
Ver. 2: Πρὸς τὴν θύραν τοῦ ἱεροῦ τὴν λεγομένην “Qpaiavy At
the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful.| Were I am at
a stand as to the determination of this gate, according to the
uncertain signification of the word ὡραίαν. If in the etymo-
logy of it, it hath any relation with ὥρα, time, (which any one
would imagine,) then we might suppose it the gate called
sabi Huldah ; perhaps so called from ποτὶ Heledh, time, or
age. ‘There were two gates of this name on the south side of
the court of the Gentiles, under that noble porch called the
βασιλικὴ, or royal porchy ; through which the way led from
Jerusalem itself, or Acra, into the Temple. But if by ὡραίαν
be meant strictly beautiful, as it is commonly rendered, then
we might suppose it the east gate of the Women’s Court:
which although it was but a brazen gate, yet for splendour
and glittering it exceeded the other gates of silver or gold.
“There were nine of the gates indeed that were overlaid with
silver and gold. But one without the temple made of Corin-
thian brass, which far exceeded those of gold or silver2.”
Let the reader judge, whether that which is added ver. 11
increase or explain the difficulty: “As the lame man which
was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together
unto them in the porch which is called ‘ Solomon’s.’”? From
whence this difficulty ariseth : Whether Peter and John and
the lame man had hitherto gone no further than the Court of
the Gentiles; or whether they had come back thither from
the Women’s Court. If the former, then the lame man lay at
some gate of the court of the Gentiles that was called ‘OQpaia,
which we may suppose was the gate called Huldah: if the
latter, then he lay at that Corinthian gate.
Ver. 4: Βλέψον ἡμᾶς" Look on us*. Ver. 5: Ὁ δὲ ἐπεῖχεν
αὐτοῖς" He gave heed unto them.| In the Jerusalem language
perhaps it might be said wb aa) b wor Look on us ;
and he looked on them. “On” a certain day Elias came to
R. Judah while a fit of toothache was upon him, and he said
¥ Middoth, cap. τ. hal. 3. a English folio edition, vol. ii. p.
* Joseph. de Bell. Jud. lib. v. 650.
cap.14. [v.5.3.] Ὁ Hieros. Chetub. fol. 35. 1.
Ch. iii. 6, 11.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 39
unto him, ab sor Look on me. ob worn) And he looked
on him, and he touched his teeth, and cured him.”
Ver. 6: ᾿Αργύριον καὶ χρυσίον οὐχ ὑπάρχει pow Silver and gold
have I none.| ‘It is a tradition’: Let no one enter into the
mountain of the Temple ἼΣΟΣ sb overt myn. with
money bound up in his linen; TIS nbawr ant) πον
with his purse hanging behind him.” Where, by the way, we
may observe the Gloss of Rambam upon the word ΓΘ ;
“ Tt isa garment (saith he), which a man puts on next his
skin, in which he sweats, that he may not spoil better clothes:
nor is it the custom for any one to go abroad with that gar-
ment alone, having no other clothes on.” We leave the
reader to spell out his meaning; but with this remark, that
he is not followed in the explication of this word by his
countrymen.
But though it was not lawful for any to carry a purse into
the Temple with them, yet was it very seldom that any did go
into the Temple without money, either in his hand, or carried
about them some other way, and that with an intent either to
bestow in alms, or to make a voluntary offermg in the trea-
sury: this is evident from those two mites of the poor widow.
Might not Peter have something of this nature to bestow to
a beggar, though he had neither silver nor gold? Doubtless
he had no such equivocation ; but meant it sincerely, that he
had no money at all.
Ver. 11: ᾿Ἐπὶ τῇ στοῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ Σολομῶντος" In the porch
that is called Solomon’s.| [{ we will distinguish betwixt porch
and porch, then Solomon’s porch was on the east, and the royal
porch on the south, We. But if we would have the whole
Court of the Gentiles to be comprehended under the name of
Solomon's porch, though it may seem something obscure why
it should be called a porch, and why Solomon’s porch, yet it
may not be unfitly admitted here. But whether it took its
name from Solomon’s porch, strictly so called, as being the
most noble porch, and anciently that of Solomon ; or because
Solomon consecrated that court in his Temple by sacrifices¢ ,
or whether because Solomon μεγάλας ἐγχώσας φάραγγας, (as
Josephus® tells us,) filled the deep trenches with earth, that by
© Beracoth, fol.62.2. ἃ 1 Kings vilil.64. 5“ [Antiq. vill. 3. 9.]
40 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. ili. 19.
levelling the place he might have room enough to make this
court : whatever it was, I deny not but the whole court might
go under that name; although, as I have elsewhere shown,
the very Solomon's porch, strictly taken as a porch, was only
the eastern part and porch of that court. And let me only
repeat what I have quoted in that placef: yw ΠΡ Ww
omy saan Nd ΓΡῚΠ “ The priest’s gate, and the gate
Huldah, were not to be destroyed at all, till God should renew
them.” Which inereaseth our Suspicion that the name
midi Huldah is derived from 75n Heled, which signifies
time and age, from the lastingness they had fancied of this
gate; and that the word ‘Qpa/a in this place might have some
such signification, as one would say, the gate of time. And
perhaps the little priest's gate was the other gate of Huldah,
from the same duration they conceited in that gate also; for
there were two gates οὔ ε that name on the south side of the
court, as we have noted before.
Ver. 19: Ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσι καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως: When the
times of refreshing shall come. may perhaps betray my igno-
rance in the Greek tongue, if I should confess that I cannot
see by what authority of that language the most learned
interpreters have rendered ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν, &e., that when
the times of refreshing shall come; as the Vulgar, Erasmus,
and the Interlinear : or when they shall come ; also the Eng-
lish, French, and Italian): or after they shall come, as Beza.
I am not ashamed to contess I do not understand by what
reason they thus render it, when it so well agrees with the
idiom of that language to translate it, that the times of re-
Sreshing may come. Psalm ix. 14, ὅπως ἂν ἐξαγγείλω: Hebrew,
ΓΞ wos that I may show forth, ἕο. Psalm xeu. 8,
ὅπως ἂν ἐξ ΛΟ εὐς οι Hebrew, oTawiT4 that they may be
destroyed for ever.” Psalm exix. 101, ὅπως ἂν φυλάξω: He-
brew, WIS an that I might τ Acts xv.17, ὅπως
ἂν ἐκζητήσωσι: thal they might seek, And so in this
place ; “‘ Repent, therefore, and be cony Te gale that your sins
may be blotted out, ὅπως dv ἔλθωσι, that the times of refresh-
ing may come,fand God may send Jesus Christ to you.”
These last words, “may send Jesus Christ,” I suppose have
f Midr. Schir. fol. 16. 4. & Leusden’s edition, vol.ii. p. 699.
h English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 651.
Ch. iii. 24.] Exercitations upon the Acts. ae
begot the difficulty in this place, and occasioned the variety
of versions we meet with: and how the Chiliasts apply these
things is well known. But if our interpretation be admitted,
what could be more fully and plainly said to answer the con-
ceptions of the auditors, who might be ready to object against
what St. Peter had said, “‘ Is it so indeed? Was that Jesus,
whom we have crucified, the true Christ? Then is all our
hope of refreshment by the Messiah vanished, because he
himself is vanished and gone. Then our expectation as to
the consolation of Israel is at an end; because he who should
be our consolation is perished.” “‘ Not so, (saith St. Peter ;)
but the Messiah, and the refreshing by him, shall be restored
to you if you will repent: yet so that he himself shall con-
tinue still in heaven. He shall be sent to you in his refresh-
ing and consolatory word, and in his benefits, if you repent,”
&e. We have something parallel to this in Acts xii. 47:
‘We turn unto the Gentiles; for so hath the Lord com-
manded us, saying, 1 have set thee to be a light of the Gen-
tiles.” Set thee? Whom? What, Paul and Barnabas? No,
but Thee, Christ, sent, and shining forth by the ministry of
those two apostles.
And henee it is that I the less doubt of the reading of the
word προκεκηρυγμένον, preached before unto you (whereas some
would rather have it προκεχειρισμένον, made ready) ; for St.
Peter’s design and discourse is about preaching. He shall
send Christ to you by way of preaching, “as he was before
preached οἵ. We may observe, that the apostle in this dis-
course of his instances in a threefold time: 1. The time be-
fore his coming, wherein he was προκεκηρυγμένος, preached be-
fore by Moses and all the prophets from Samuel, and so on.
2. This time when he came, and God exhibited him to the
world (ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν, having raised him up, ver. 26): raising
him up for a Saviour, he sent him to you first, that by his
doctrine he might turn every one of you from his iniquities.
And, 3. Now that he is gone up into heaven, and is there to
abide, yet God will send him to you that repent in the preach-
ing of his word, as he was before preached.”
Ver. 24: Kal πάντες δὲ of προφῆται ἀπὸ Σαμουὴλ, &e. And
all the prophets from Samuel, &c.] We have Moses and Samuel
mentioned together in this place, as also Psalm xcix. 6; be-
42 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. iv. 5.
cause there are few or no prophets between these two, 1 Sam.
iii. 1, and the apparitions of angels having been more fre-
quent. And, after the decease of Phinehas, it is a question
whether there was any oracle by Urim and Thummim, through
the defect of prophecy in the high priests, till the times of
Samuel: but then it revived in Abimelech, Abiathar, ὅσο.
ON") buy 13 esau Samuel was the master of the
prophets’.
CHARS ΤΥ:
Ver. 1: Καὶ ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ: And the captain of the
Temple.| We have spoken already of this captain of the temple
in notes upon Luke xxii.4; and told you, that he was the
captain of all those priestly and Levitical guards and watches
that were kept in the temple. He is termed in the Talmudists
MAT WI we the man of the mountain of the house; or, the
ruler of the mountain of the temple.
Ver. 5%: Συναχθῆναι ἄρχοντας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ypap-
ματεῖς εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ: Their rulers, and elders, and scribes, .
were gathered together at Jerusalem.| At Jerusalem, admits of
a double construction; either as the city may be set in oppo-
sition to the country: or the town itself to the temple.
I. If we admit the former, and that these had gathered
themselves from the adjacent towns to meet at Jerusalem ;
then we may suppose them assembled rather upon the ac-
count of some solemnity of the day, than merely to take
cognizance of the cause of Peter and John. [0 is a question, .
whether they all knew of their imprisonment, which was done
the evening before; and probably while they were absent
their commitment was made, and that act done by some chief
of the priests, the captain of the watches, and by the Sad-
ducees, not by a just Sanhedrim.
If we will grant, therefore, that the lame man was healed
that day in the afternoon on which the Holy Ghest had been
poured out upon the disciples in the forenoon!, then, on this
very day, it behoved every male to appear before the Lord in
the temple with some oblation or other. For whereas the
day of Pentecost fell then on the Jewish sabbath, and this
i Hieros. Chagigah, fol. 77. 1. k English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 652.
1 Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 700.
Ch. iv. 5.] Huxercitations upon the Acts. 43
day (that being supposed) was the second day after that, it
was the day of FSM appearing in the temple; which pro-
bably might occasion these rulers and elders meeting toge-
ther in the city at this time.
IJ. But if we take Jerusalem in this place in opposition
to the temple, it remembers us of the tradition concerning
the Sanhedrim’s removal from the temple to the city, which
Jewish authors tell us of. ‘The™ Sanhedrim removed from
the room Gazith to the Taberne, and from the Taberne into
Jerusalem,” &e. Where we may observe the same contradis-
tinction between the city and the temple: for in the temple
was both Gazith and the Taberne or shops. This removal
happened forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
“ Forty" years before the destruction of the city the Sanhe-
drim removed. For when they observed the strange increase
of murderers amongst them, that they grew too many to be
ealled in question, they said, mind oy ‘593 ml cab)
It is best for us to remove from place to place.’ Upon which
very words, I¢ is best for us to remove, I cannot but remember
that passage in Josephus; “On° the feast which is called
Pentecost, the priests, according to custom, entering into the
inner temple by night, to perform the service, perceived first,
as they said, a certain motion and crack, and then a sudden
voice, Μεταβαίνωμεν ἐντεῦθεν, Let us remove from hence.”
Which words whether they agree amongst themselves, and
fall in with the time now before us, let the reader himself
consider and judge. That passage in chap. v.25 gives some
hint that the Sanhedrim at this time sat in the city, and not
in the temple; which the reader may also consider.
Π|. I hardly believe any one will doubt but that by
ἄρχοντας, πρεσβυτέρους, and γραμματεῖς, rulers, elders, and
scribes, must be understood the great council: but to distin-
guish these particularly, I can hardly say whether it be more
nice or more difficult. We might say that by ἄρχοντας,
rulers, might be meant Gamaliel the president, and Simeon
his son, the vice-president : by the elders, the rest of the body
of the Sanhedrim: by the scribes, either the two registrars, or
m Rosh hashanah, fol. 31. 1. © De Bell. Jud. lib. vi. cap. 31.
n Avodah Zarah, fol. 8. 2. [ Hudson, p. 1282. 1. 18.] [vi. 5, 3.]
44 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. αν Ὁ. ΤῊΣ
those wise men OMT IAS OIN who judged before the
Sanhedrim, or both: but I waive being too curious.
Ver. 6: ᾿Ιωάννην" John.] If we may render ἐκ γένους ἀρχιε-
ρατικοῦ with the Vulgar, ew genere sacerdotali, and especially
with the Syriae and Arabic, of the stock of the priests, | would,
without any stickling, conceive this John here mentioned to be
no other than Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacecai; because at that
time there was not any one more famous throughout the
whole nation ; and he was of the stock of the priests.
“ RabbanP Jochanan Ben Zaccai the priest lived a hun-
dred and twenty years, &e. He found favour in the eyes of
Ceesar: from whom he obtained Jafneh, and his wise men,
and physicians that cured R. Zadok. WS mou. now
maa Lrom the time that he died, the glory of wisdom ceased.”
About that very time which we now have under consideration,
we have this passage related concerning him: ‘‘ Forty years |
before the destruction of the city, when the gates of the
temple flew open of their own accord, Rabban Jochanan Ben
Zaceai said, ‘O temple, temple, why dost thou disturb thy-
self? I know thy end, that thou shalt be destroyed ; for so
the prophet Zachary hath spoken concerning thee, Open thy
doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.’ ”
Het saw the flames of the city and of the temple: and
having obtained from the emperor Titus that the Sanhedrim
might be settled at Jabneh, he presided there two or five
years ; for the certain number is not agreed upon.
All that can be objected against this Jochanan Ben Zaceai
being the John mentioned in this place seems to be this, that
if this was an assembly of priests, leavened with the leaven of
the Sadducees, (as may be conjectured out of chap. ν. 17,)
then this Jochanan Ben Zaccai ought not to be reckoned
amongst them; for he both lived and died a Pharisee, at
least not a Sadducee: but if the whole Sanhedrim is to be
understood here, wherein the priests, as much as they were
capable, would strengthen their own party, then would I look
for no other John than this son of Zaceai.
Ver. 11: Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς, ἄς. This is the
» Juchasin, fol. 60. 7. 4 Joma, fol. 39. 2.
τ English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 653.
Ohi. τνὸ 15] Exercitations upon the Acts. 45
stone which was set at nought, §c.| The words are taken out of
Psalm exvili. 22; OAM ION JAN The stone which the
builders rejected, &e. And are these things said of the Mes-
siah ? Surely the Jew will hardly believe his pompous Messiah
should be rejected, and set at nought by his own countrymen.
And therefore doth St. Peter the more vehemently incul-
cate it; This is the stone. Our Saviour had said before,
Matt. xxi, “ Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone
which the builders rejected,” ἅς. Yes, they had read and
read it again, and oftentimes recited it in their Great Hallel ;
but you shall never persuade them that these things were
spoken of their Messiah, but rather of Jacob, as somes ; or of
David, as otherst; or of the congregation of Israel, as Aben
Ezra, &c.; but by no means of their Messiah: for they
dreamed of such a Messiah that should come so according to
their heart’s desire, that it was ineredible any Jew should
ever reject or despise him.
Ver. 134%: ᾿Αγράμματοί εἰσι καὶ ἰδιῶται: Unlearned and rgno-
rant men.| < I\literate and vulgar persons also.” For it is
supposed in Joma*, that even the high priest himself may be
ἀγράμματος, unlearned, when yet he was by no means a vulgar
person, no ἰδιώτης, plebeian. ‘“ They say unto him, ‘ Lord high
priest, do thou read thyself out of thine own mouth: perhaps
thou hast forgotten; or perhaps thou didst never learn.’”
And so vice versa. Therey are some called ΣΟΥ ΟΥ̓ ΓΙ ἰδιῶται,
who were not so walearned. There are three kings that have
no part in the world to come, viz. Jeroboam, Ahab, and
Manasseh; MWVITA TYAN and four common persons,
Balaam, Doeg, Ahithopel, and Gehazi.”
But these apostles were wnlearned, and ἰδιῶται, men of no
degree or quality, but vulgar persons, and of the common
people. So 1 Sam. xvii. 23, 7p) wr WN a poor and
vile man. The Targumist reads, QYWT {DM AAI A poor
man and ἰδιώτης, or vulgar person. And chap. xxiv. 14,
« After a dead dog, after a flea?” Targumist, won an
I yyw wi. Ww After one feeble wretch, after one ἰδιώτης,
common person.
5. Midr. Tillin. xCap. τ΄ hal...
t Pesachin, fol. 119. 1. y Sanhedr. fol. go. r.
u Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 701.
46 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. iv. 17.
Ver. 17: ᾿Απειλῇ ἀπειλησώμεθα αὐτοῖς, &e. Let us straitly
threaten them, &c.| 1. This incessant and implacable enmity
and stubbornness the Sanhedrim had against the doctrine
and miracles of the apostles in the name of Jesus, (of which
this was the first specimen,) did betray a most particular
spite and ill will they had towards Jesus above all other men.
Let us only compare the case of Jesus with that of John Bap-
tist. ‘All men esteemed John a prophet? ;” nor did they so
much oppugn his preaching. And why should they so unani-
mously set themselves against the preaching of Jesus, which
was signalized with so many and so great miracles beyond
that of John the Baptist ?
II. We conceive in our notes upon John xi. 48, that the
fathers of the Sanhedrim had either a downright knowledge,
or at least a suspicion, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah ;
and hence arose their hatred against his person and doctrine.
It is much disputed and questioned concerning the testimony
which Josephus gives concerning Jesus, whether it was
Josephus’s own, or whether it had not been foisted and
thrust in by some Christian. And yet in it (excepting the
last clause) you will hardly find any thing but what the very
rulers of the Jews either owned, or at least suspected, if they
would speak out. Tiverau δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ᾿Ιησοῦς,
σοφὸς ἀνὴρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔρ-
γων ποιητής ἃ" About this time, there was one Jesus, a wise man,
af it be lawful to call him’ a man: for he wrought strange
works. I suspect that Josephus in those words, if it be lawful
to call him a man, did not set the word ἄνδρα, man, in opposi-
tion to God, but in opposition to prophet, in some such sense
as this; “If it be lawful to call him merely σοφὸν ἄνδρα, a
wise man | Heb. ODF], and not to call him a prophet ; for he
did great miracles.” He goes on: Ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἣν" This was
the Christ, Matt. xxi. 38: “When the husbandmen saw the son,
they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill
him.” Now if the rest of that parable agree with the actions
of the rulers of that nation, in persecuting the prophets, and
even Christ himself, which any one may discern; then why
may not this clause be accounted to agree so far with them
z Matt. xxi. 26. son, p. 798. 1. 26.] [xviil. 3. 3.]
a Antiq. lib. xviii. cap. 4. [Hud- b English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 654.
Ch. iv. 17. | Exercitations upon the Acts. 47
too, as that when it shows that “ they said among them-
selves, This is the heir,” &c., it may intimate, that the chief
of the Jews, who condemned and crucified the Lord Jesus,
knew him to have been the Messiah ? 5
To proceed in the historian, ᾿Ε φάνη αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν
πάλιν ζῶν: He appeared to them (his disciples), having revived the
third day. Let us but consult Matt. xxviii. 13—15, and see
if there can be any doubt whether the priests and fathers of
the Sanhedrim were not convinced and persuaded that Jesus
had indeed arose from the dead, when they did, so knowingly
and industriously, devise a tale to elude his resurrection.
Thus far, therefore, Josephus (if it was he indeed that was
the author of that passage) hath uttered nothing but what
the rulers themselves were conscious of, if they would have
spoken out: but what is added in him, τῶν θειῶν προφητῶν
ταῖτα καὶ ἄλλα μύρια θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων" the divine
prophets having said these, and a thousand other wonderful
things of him, this, I confess, is so noble and ingenuous an
acknowledgment of Jesus, that I would hardly expect it from
Josephus, and much less from any of his countrymen. But,
however, be this passage Josephus’s own or not, yet,
III. That which we assert seems confirmed by that of
John xi. 47,48; The chief priests and Pharisees said, ‘‘ What
do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him
thus alone the Romans shall come and take away both our
place and nation.” Who does not here see that they that
speak this had their eye upon that of Daniel ix. 26, 27;
where the prophet discourseth about the Messiah, “ that he
shall be cut off; that he shall cause the sacrifice and the
oblation to cease; that the people of the prince that shall come
[i. e. the Romans] shall destroy the city and sanctuary?”
Whence it may very probably be argued, that they, both from
the agreement of times and from the miracles and doctrine
of Jesus, did more than suspect that this was the Messiah of
whom the prophet had there discoursed, and that they were
in great doubt what to do with him. “ This man doth many
miracles, and demonstrates himself to be the Messiah; and
what shall we do? To cut off the Messiah would be a horrid
thing: and yet, on the other hand, if we should suffer him, he
48 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. iv. 27, 36.
would make the sacrifice and oblation to cease; he would
put an end to the service in the temple; our religion would
fall: and then what remains, but that the people of the prince
that shall come, the Romans, will come and take away both
our place and nation?”
Object. But do we not meet with such passages as these ?
‘“* And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it,
as did also your rulers,” Acts¢ 1]. 17. “* For they that dwell
at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not,
nor yet the voices of the prophets,” ὅσο. ἢ chap. xiii. 27.
Answ. They knew not, indeed, the person and office of the
Messiah : they were ignorant of his Godhead ; and as to his
office, dreamed of nothing but earthly and temporal things ;
but then this doth not hinder but that they might know
Jesus to be the true Messiah: whom when they found falling
short of the expectations and conceits they had framed of the
Messiah, and that his doctrine tended to the subversion of
Judaism, they had rather have no Messiah than such a one;
and let himself and his gospel perish with him, rather than
their Judaism.
Ver. 27: Συνήχθησαν ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας: Of a truth they were
gathered together.| And then follows in some Bibles, ἐν τῇ
πόλει ταύτῃ, in this city: so Beza, the Vulgar, the Syriac,
and the Alexandrian MS., ἐν τῇ πόλει σοῦ ταύτῃ. in this city
of thine. Which might be, therefore, the rather allowed of,
because the Jews do remove the insurrection that should be
made against the Lord and his Christ so far from their own
city. It is a thing they will not believe, that in Jerusalem, or
amongst the Jews, any rebellion against the Messiah should
ever be moved or fomented: these things, they say, were
spoken concerning Gog and Magog, that rose up against
{srael¢ ; or concerning some other (heathen) country rebelling
against the Messiah °.
Ver. 36f: Ἰωσὴς ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς BapvdBas, &e. Joses, sur-
named Barnabas, &c.| Whereas there were two very noted
Josephs, for distinction’s sake, as it should seem, the one was
Joseph Barnabas, the other Joseph Barsabas. ‘The apostles
© Leusden’s edit., vol. 11. p. 702. © Midr. ‘Till. fol. 4. 2.
4 Avodah Zarah, fol. 3. 2. f English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 655.
Ch. v. 2.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 49
gave the name of Barnabas, it may be questioned whether
they did the name of Barsabas or no: because there is a
Judas Barsabas also, in Acts xv. 22.
It is uncertain whence the name Barnabas is derived; and
so much the more, because it is uncertain what the word
παράκλησις should signify in this place. It is generally inter-
preted, the son of consolation. In the Syriac, NNNDT NI;
whence by a long deduction they would make N12) naba. 1
contend not; but when παράκλησις equally signifies exhorta-
tion as well as consolation ; and the apostle expressly distin-
guisheth it from παραμυθία, consolation, 1 Cor. xiv. 3; it seems
more probable to take its original from S21) to prophesy:
under which word every one knows exhortation is compre-
hended in the first place; and according to this signification
of the word παράκλησις we find him behaving himself, chap.
XI. 23, παρεκάλει πάντας, &e. “ He exhorted them all, that with
purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.”
Κύπριος τῷ γένει: Of the country of Cyprus.) So the twe
apostles of the Gentiles have Gentile countries for their native
soil. Paul in Cilicia, Barnabas in Cyprus: where he also
sold his land; for it is a question whether he could have sold
it in the land of Israel; as also whether he, being a Levite,
was capable of possessing any land that had not belonged to
the cities of Levi, which could not be sold in the same
manner that other lands were. Nay, “Τὸ was not lawful for
an Israelite to part with the land of his inheritance, unless
constrained to it by his poverty: according as it is said, If
thy brother should become poor, and seil his possession®,” &e.
Here lands are sold, not so much upon account of their own
poverty, as the poverty of others.
CH Age. Ν
Ver. 2: Ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς, &e. Kept back part of
the price, &c.| Didst thou not remember, Ὁ Ananias, what
things had been prophesied concerning the Spirit of the Mes-
siah $ Pwd qbn by am The Spirit of the King Messiah,
viz. a spirit of wisdom and understanding, &c. Isaiah xi. 2:
“ He shall make him quick of scent in the fear of the Lord.”
“ Rabbab saith, PNT MIT He smelleth and judgeth : not
& Maimon. Shemittah Vejobel, cap. 11. h Sanhedr. fol. 93. 2.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. Ε
59 Hebrew and Talmudical FOR. v.Ag.
after the sight of his eyes doth he judge. Bar-Cozbi reigned
two years and a half; and said to the Rabbins, ‘I am the
Messiah.’ They reply upon him, ‘ It is written of the Messiah,
That he smelleth and judgeth: let us see if thou canst do so
also,’ &e. The Gloss is, “" He smells out a man, whether he
be guilty or innocent.”
By what apprehension of things Ananias was so deceived,
as to think to have deceived the Holy Ghost, is not easy to
conceive or guess. He might understand by the instance
of Gehazi how quick and sagacious the spirit of a prophet
is in detecting all cheats and tricks; and did he not suppose
the apostles endowed with a spirit as capable as the prophet’s
was? Whatever it was that had blinded him to that mad-
ness, or hardened him to that daringness in sin, he abides as
a dreadful monument throughout all ages of the indignation
of God upon all those that shall contemn and vilify his Holy
Spirit: whom if he did not blaspheme within his heart, how
near was he to that sin! Such mischiefs can hypocrisy and
covetousness bring about.
It is not to be searched out, of what degree or quality this
Ananias was. There is some probability he was not of the
mere vulgar sort, but of some higher rank ; because the men-
tion of him falls in with that of Barnabas; and there are
more things that do in some measure persuade us. For
what hinders why he should not be supposed to have been
one of that number upon whomi the Holy Ghost had been
shed? What Judas was amongst the twelve, that might he
be amongst the hundred and twenty ; endowed with the gifts
of the Holy Ghost, and yet a devil. For ψεύσασθαί ce τὸ
Πνεῦμα τὸ ἽΑγιον may have something more in it than /ying to
the Holy Ghost. Perhaps it may be the same with ὩΣ
falsifying the Holy Ghost, and making him a liar.
Ver. 3: Εἶπε δὲ Πέτρος, &e. But Peter said, &c.] Whe-
ther St. Peter derived the authority of sentencing this man to
an immediate death from those words of our Lord, ‘* Whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained!;” or whether from
some immediate revelation, or both; he gives a notable in-
stance of his own repentance and recovery, after his fall,
i Leusdén’s edit., vol.ii. p.703. * English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 656.
1 John xx. [23.]
Ch. v. 6, &e.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 51
whilst he who by a lie, yea, even perjury itself, had denied
his Master, doth such severe execution upon another for a
lie he was guilty of.
Ver. 6: Συνέστειλαν αὐτὸν, ἕο. Wound him up, &c.| They
having no PIMIN burying cloths at hand do bind up the dead
man in what fashion they can; and, carrying him out of that
place, commit him to the earth.
Ver.7: ‘Qs ὡρῶν τριῶν διάστημα: About the space of three
hours.| So long a space of time being spent for interring the
deceased, doth seem to hint something as to the distance of
the buryingplace; which in the cities of the Levites we have
thus described: “The suburbical lands for the Levitical cities
are defined in the law to be three thousand cubits from the
wall of each side outward. According as it is said, ‘ From
the wall of the city and outward, a thousand cubits.’ And it
is elsewhere said, ‘ Ye shall measure from without the city, on
the east side, two thousand eubits.’ The thousand eubits are
the suburbs of the city; and those two thousand which they
measure beyond those are for fields and vineyards. Now
they assign the buryingplace for each city beyond all these
bounds; because they do not bury their dead within the
limits of the city™.” The buryingplace from a Levitical city
was above a mile and a half distant. Was it so in other
cities, that belonged not to the Levites? doubtless burying-
places were at some distance from all cities; but whether so
far, may be inquired, but must not be the matter of our pre-
sent search.
Μὴ εἰδυῖα τὸ γεγονός" Not knowing what was done.| Hence,
probably, we may gather the reason why the word συνέστει-
Aav, they wound him up,is added. Had the deceased been
earried to his own house or lodgings by them who brought
him out of the chamber, where he fell down dead, to fetch
buryingcloths, his wife could not have been ignorant of what
had fallen ont: but συνέστειλαν αὐτὸν, they wound him up, as
well as they could in his own clothes, and so carried him out
and buried him.
Ver. 13: Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα κολλᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς" And
of the rest durst no man join himself to them.] Who should
these λοιποὶ, vest, be? Those certainly that were of the
m Maimon. Shemittah Vejobel, cap. 13.
E 2
52 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. v. 15, &e.
number of the hundred and twenty, excepting the twelve
apostles. Of this number I presume Ananias might be one :
and the rest, being terrified by the fate of one of their own
order, conceived so great a dread and reverence for the apo-
stles, that they durst not join with them as their equals.
Ver.15": Ἵνα ἐρχομένου Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκιὰ ἐπισκιάσῃ τινὶ αὐτῶν᾽
That at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow
some of them.| And why the shadow of Peter more than the
rest of the apostles, who shared an equal authority and power
of miracles with himself, ver. 12? 1. It must be supposed
that the sick were not brought out in their beds into the
streets, unless they had first seen Peter, or were assured that
he must pass by. 2. It is a question whether they that
brought out their sick knew any other of the apostles besides
Peter. They had heard him speaking, they had seen him
doing, while the rest were silent and sat still. And that
which these believers here do doth not so much argue his
preeminence beyond the rest of the apostles, as that he was
more known and noted than the others were.
Ver. 20: Ta ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης: The words of this life.}
There is no necessity that these words should beget any
difficulty, if we will observe that ver. 17 there is mention of
the ‘sect of the Sadducees.’ So that “* the words of this life”
are words that assert and prove this life, that is, the resurree-
tion; which the Sadducees deny. For the controversy was
about Jesus’s resurrection.
Ver. 34.: Γαμαλιὴλ, νομοδιδάσκαλος" Gamaliel, a doctor of the
law.| This was Rabban Gamaliel the First; commonly, and
by way of distinction, called ]237 bisbna Ja Rabban Ga-
maliel the Old. He was president of the council after his own
father Rabban Simeon, who was the son of Hillel. He was
St. Paul’s master, and five and thirtieth receiver of the tradi-
tions; and upon this account might not improperly be termed
νομοδιδάσκαλος, a doctor of the law, because he was one that
kept and handed down the Cabbala received from mount Sinai ;
only that the Rabbins of an inferior degree enjoyed also the
same title. He died eighteen years before the destruction of
Jerusalem, his son Simeon succeeding him in the chair, who
perished in the ruins of the city. Whereas he doth in some
» English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 657.
Ch. v. 36.] Ezxercitations upon the Acts. 53
measure apologize for the apostles, one might believe he did
favour Christianity. But he died® a Pharisee; and if he was
not the author, yet did he approve and recommend that
prayer entitled Ὁ) MDI ἃ prayer against the heretics,
Samuel the Little being the author: and who they meant by
heretics is easy enough to apprehend. The counsel, therefore,
that he giveth here seems to be of that nature that had all
along been practised between the Sadducees and the Phari-
sees, one sect always wishing and looking for the destruction
of the other.
Ver. 36: Πρὸ yap τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδᾶς: Before
these days rose up Theudas.| Josephus makes mention of one
Theudas, an impostorP, whose character indeed agrees well
enough with this of ours; but they seem to disagree in time.
For Josephus brings in his Theudas Φάδου τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας ἐπιτρο-
πεύοντος, when Fadus was governor of Judea, about the fifth or
sixth year of Claudius: and Gamaliel brings in his before the
times of ‘ Judas the Galilean.’
Those that are advocates for Josephus do imagine there
might be another Theudas besides him that he mentions:
and they do but imagine it, for they name none. I could in-
stance, indeed, in two more of that name; neither of which
agrees with this of Gamaliel, or will afford any light to the
chronology of Josephus.
I. We meet with one Theudas a physician in Bab. San-
hedrim4, where there is a dispute upon no mean question ;
Where Daniel was at that time that Nebuchadnezzar’s image
was set up and worshipped, that he should all that while
come under no examination, nor have any the least harm fall
to him: and it being answered, amongst other things, that he
was then sent into Egypt to fetch some swine thence, it is
objected SINT TN “75 tt so indeed? but this ts the tradition:
ON NEV OTN Theudas the physician saith, ‘That neither
cow nor sow come from Alexandria of Egypt.’ ”
II. There™ is mention of one Theudas, a Jew, living at
Romes. ‘“ The traditions of R. Jose saith, O77 WX ON
© Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 704. 5. Hieros. Jom Tobh, fol. 61. 3;
P Antiq. 1. xx. cap. 2. [xx.5.1.] | Moed Katon, fol. 81. 4; Bab. Bera-
ᾳ Fol. 93.1. coth, fol. 19. 1.
τ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 658.
84 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. v. 37.
WI WIN AN WTI Theudas, a man at Rome, taught men
(i.e. Jews) at Rome, >. pobsppo oma poo ww
DVS, that, on the Passover-nights they should eat whole kids
roasted : the Gloss is, “ the trotters, legs,” &c. The wise men
sent to him, threatening excommunication, because he taught
Israel yn. Dwi bro to eat holy things without, i.e. the
Passover, at Rome; which it was not lawful to eat but at
Jerusalem: for, as the Gloss hath it, ““ Whosoever should see
kids so roasted would conceive they were consecrated for
paschal lambs.” I am very apt to believe that the proccenium,
or meal before the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. xi. 21, might be some
such thing as this.
Can we suppose now that Gamaliel could have either of
these Theudases in his eye? Indeed, neither the one nor the
other has any agreeableness with that character that is given
of this Theudas about whom we are inquiring. That in
Josephus is much more adapted; and grant only that the
historian might slip in his chronology, and there is no other
difficulty in it. Nor do I indeed see, why we should give so
much deference to Josephus in this matter, as to take such
pains in vindicating his care or skill in it. We must (for-
sooth) find out some other Theudas, or change the stops in
the verses, or invent some other plaster for the sore, rather
than Josephus should be charged with the least mistake ; to
whom yet, both in history and chronology, it is no unusual
thing to trip or go out of the road of truth. I would therefore
think that the Theudas in Josephus is this same in Gamaliel ;
only that the historian mistook in his accounts of time, and
so defaced a true story by false chronology.
Ver. 37: ᾿Ιούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος" Judas of Galilee.] In Josephus
it is ᾿Ιούδας Γαυλανίτης, Judas the Gaulanitet ; and yet, in the
title and inscription of that chapter it is περὶ ᾿Τούδα τοῦ Γαλι-
λαίου, concerning Judas of Galilee ; which hath elsewhere oe-
casioned a question, Whether some part of the country beyond
Jordan went not also under the name of Galilee? But I shall
not repeat it here.
t Antiq. lib. xvill. cap. 1. [xvill. 1. 1.]
Ch. vi. 1.] Lrercitations upon the Acts. 55
CHAR. VI;
Ver. 1: Γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν πρὸς τοὺς ‘EBpatovs' A
murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews.) First, let us
consider who these Hebrews were.
1. The word “ly a Hebrew, admitted another kind of sig-
nification under the second temple than it had before and
under the first: because, in the Old Testament it had refer-
ence to the original and language of that nation; in the New
Testament, to their travels and their language. Abraham is
first called ay Gen. xiv.13, a Hebrew. So Symmachus, the
Vulgar, and others: but the Greek interpreters render it
περάτης, passer-over" [transitor]. But this version need not
concern us much; when it is plain the interpreters have ren-
dered the word 93 according to the common use under the
second temple, and not according to the primitive and original
use of it. For the same reason the Rabbins incline the same
way.
“ R. Nehemiah* saith, ‘ Abraham is called 92Y a Hebrew,
because he was of the posterity of Heber [39]: but the
Rabbins say, he is so called because he came from beyond
(Sy |] the river.” And they add withal (which deserves
some inquiry) 73Y mwa Mw Swwi Andy for that he
used the language beyond the river. J would rather have said,
he might fitly be called 92Y @ Hebrew, because, even in
Mesopotamia and Chaldea, he retained the Hebrew language
in the proper sense. For, if he brought over the transfluvian
or Chaldean language into Canaan, as his own and family’s
mother-tongue, it is hardly imaginable by what means the
Hebrew tongue, strictly so called, should become the native
and proper language of his posterity. I have elsewhere offered
another reason why he should be termed ὦ Hebrew in that
place in Genesis; which I still adhere to.
II. After? the Babylonish captivity, there was such an
alteration of things, that 1y JW? the Hebrew tongue be-
came the language beyond the river, or the Chaldee tongue. This
is plain from those several words, Bethesda, Golgotha, Akeldama,
ἃ Vid. Nobil. in loc. y Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 705.
x Beresh. Rabba, fol. 47.1. 2 English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 659.
56 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vi. ¥.
&e. which are said “Efpaiori λέγεσθαι to be so called in the He-
brew tongue ; and yet every one knows the words to be mere
Chaldee. The old and pure Hebrew language at that time
was called YW mw the Assyrian tongue: and the Syriac
and Chaldee "Ay mw the Hebrew tongue, or (as themselves
interpret it) the language beyond the river. NAYT WW? NAY
arnt In the Hebrew language, i.e. in the language beyond the
river®, WPT Ww? NWR Ln the Assyrian tongue, i.e. in
the holy lanquage®.
We cannot but observe by the way, that the doctors dis-
tinguish betwixt Ay the Hebrew tongue, and Γ᾽ the
Syriac; in the mean time distinguishing both from WS
the Assyrian or holy lanauage. “ smbogh spe the Syrian
tongue is fit for lamentation ; sat5 ay the Hebrew tongue
for speech : ansd ows AN DDN WM and there are
that say, the Assyrian tonque is good for writing’.” ‘This dis-
tinction between the Hebrew tongue, or that beyond the river,
and the Syrian, which really are the same language, is much
such another distinction as between S070 the Syriac, and
ἜΜ the Aramean. “ Rabbit saith, a “ss55 SDD
Why the Syrian tongue in the land of Israel, nod ἽΝ why
mo md ἽΝ WIP when either the holy language or the
Greek should rather be used? R. Jose saith, O78 mw bas5
5 Why the Aramean tongue in Babylon, wd ww Nos
SOD mw ἽΝ WITT when rather, either the holy lanquage or
the Persian should be used?” The Gloss is, “ Because the
Greek is more elegant than the Syriac, and the Persian than
the Aramean.”
We see first how they distinguish here betwixt the Syriac
tongue and the Aramean; and the Gloss upon the place tells
us upon what account they do it, in these words: ‘“ Behold,
whereas he takes notice that the Syriac is used in the land of
Israel, and the Aramean in Babylon, therefore he doth it, as
saith R. Tam, because there is some variation and difference
between them: as it happens in any common language which
a Aruch in 543. 4 Bava Kama, fol. 83.1. Sotah,
> Gloss. in Megil. fol. 8. 2. fol. 49. 2.
© Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 3.
Ch. vi. 1.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 57
they speak much finer in one country than in another. For
as to those words Gen. xxxi. 52, M7 bor ty This heap be
witness, Onkelos renders them pw NVI WD, when
Laban saith ΓΟ ΓΟ 3°. But now we must say that
Laban spoke Ὁ mw in the Syriac tongue, which is so
called from Syria. Now Syria was Aram Naharaim, and
Aram Zobah, which David subdued. And because that is
nearer to the land of Israel, the Avamean language of it is
not so pure.” Gloss in Sotahe: “The Syriac tongue is near
akin to the Aramean. And I say that that is the language of
the Jerusalem Talmud.”
We see, secondly, that the Syria¢ was the mother tongue
of the land of Israel, and the Aramean, which is almost the
same, was that of Babylon rather than the Greek or Persic,
which were more elegant; nay, rather than the holy lan-
guage, which was the noblest of all: and that (as to the holy
language) for a reason very obvious, viz. that it was every-
where lost as to common use, and was generally unknown.
As to the two other languages, why they were not in use, the
Gloss gives the reason ; which we have also given us else-
where: Sf yo b> IDVO nw sop bys Lest the Syriac
tongue should be vile in thine eyes.’ [Bereshith Rabba, by a
mistake of the printer, hath 5275 the Persic, instead of SOND
the Syriac.) ‘For, behold, God doth give it honour in the
Law, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographa. In the Law,
for it is said, ΝΥ ΓΟ “2X The heap of witness, Gen. ΧΧΧΙ.
47: in the Prophets, for it is said, pind PARA IT
Thus shall ye say unto them, Jer. x.11: and in the Hagio-
grapha, for it is said, NN Toad oO swdT AM And
the Chaldeans spake to the king in Syriac, Daneis4220
The Syriac, therefore, or the Aramean tongue under the
second temple, was that which went under the name of the
Hebrew tongue, that is, the language beyond the river: whence
they were at that time called Hebrews, upon the account of
the common use of that tongue. But whether all to whom
that was their mother-tongue were called Hebrews may be a
little questioned : and for what reasons it may be so, I shall
show after I have said something concerning the Hedlenosts.
e Fol. 49. 2. f Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 3. Beresh. Rabba, fol. 83. 4.
58 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vi. 1-
I. It is not denied by any but that the Hebrews were Jews
in their original: whether the Hedlenists were Jews too is
called in question by some. Beza upon the place denies it :
«“Ελληνιστὰς, the Hellenists St. Luke means in this place are
those who were of a profane stock, but adopted into the
nation of the Jews by circumcision, called therefore proselytes.
For they are mistaken who think those Jews that were dis-
persed amongst other nations were called “EAAnvisral, Helle-
nists.” He thinks this opinion of his is countenanced by that
of Acts xi. 19, 20: “ Preaching the word to none but unto the
Jews only. And some: of them were men of Cyprus and
Cyrene, which when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the
Hellenists.’? From whence Beza infers, “* Whereas the ‘EAAn-
νισταὶ, or Hellenists, seem to be opposed to the Jews in this
place, it is plain that by the name of Hedlenists, not only the
provincial or proselyte Jews are to be understood, that is,
such as were! here and there dispersed, but even those also
of the Gentiles who are elsewhere by St. Luke termed σεβό-
μενοι, or devout men,” &e.
Let it be granted that the σεβόμενοι, or devout men, should
be promiscuously understood with the proselytes, though there
is some difference betwixt them, and that very conspicuous ;
yet I see not by what law or authority he should confound
the Hellenists with the proselytes. And if those are mistaken
who suppose the Jews that were dispersed amongst other
nations to be called ‘EAAnvoral, Hellenists, Τ confess myself
willingly to be in that error too. Nor yet would I put all
these Jews that were dispersed among the Gentiles under the
name of /Ze/lenists ; not those that were scattered amongst
the Medes, Parthians, Persians, Arabians, and those eastern
countries. Nor do I suppose that he would call the prose-
lytes of those nations /Hellenists, because the very etymology
of the word implies Grecism.
1. Chap. 11. 10, we meet with Jews and proselytes; and
in this chapter we meet with Hebrews and Hellenisis. We
may most truly say, that the proselytes there are distin-
guished from the Jews: we cannot at the same time say,
that the word Hedlenists in this place distinguisheth them
& Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 706. ἢ English folio edit., vol. il. p. 660.
Ch. vi. 1.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 59
from the Jews, when we see it only distinguisheth from the
Hebrews.
2. St. Luke calls Nicolas ‘a proselyte of Antioch,’ ver. 5.
Would we therefore call him ᾿Ελληνιστὴν ᾿Αντιοχέα, a Helle-
nist of Antioch ? we would rather term him, Ἕλληνα, a Greek,
because his very name shows him to have been originally
a Greek.
3. As to that distinction in chap. ΧΙ: 19, 20, (for I would
rather term it a distinction than an antithesis,) it doth not
conclude the Hellenists not to have been Jews, but intimates
the difference only between Jews of a more pure and worthy
rank, and Jews not so pure and worthy.
II. There are those that think, and that truly, that the
Hellenists were ‘Jews dispersed amongst the Gentiles ;’ but
that they were called Hellenists for this reason especially, viz.
because they used the Greek Bible in their synagogues:
which whether it be true or not I question, but will not dispute
it at this present; only thus far I will observe :
1. That the Greek tongue was in mean esteem amongst
the Jews; indeed they hated it rather than took any pleasure
in it, or had any value for it. Wheni Aristobulus the Asmo-
nean besieged his brother Hyrcanus, and some things had
fallen out amiss with them, through the counsel of a certain
old man skilled in the Greek learning, “they said at that
time, ‘Cursed be the man that cherisheth swine,’ and, ‘Cursed
the man that teacheth his son thé wisdom of the Greeks.’
pow Sw oiabpa Ink the war of Titus they decreed soy
my ia ms os Ww» that no man should teach his son
Greck.” The Gloss upon this place confounds the stories ;
and would have the war of Titus the same with that of Ari-
stobulus and Hyreanus; but the Gloss upon the former place
rightly distinguisheth, and grants there was such a decree
made in the days of the Asmoneans, but having been ne-
glected, in process of time was revived and renewed in the
war with Titus. Let it be one or the other, we may abun-
dantly see what kind of respect the Greek learning or lan-
guage had amongst them. For this passage follows in both :
‘“‘ Samuel saith in the name of Rabban Simeon Ben Gama-
hel: There were a thousand boys NAN FV in my father’s
i Bava Kama, fol. 82. 2. k Sotah, fol. 40. 1.
60 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. vi. 1.
school, of whom five hundred learned the law, and five hundred
the wisdom of the Greeks, and there is not one (of all that
last number) now alive, excepting myself here, and my uncle’s
son in Asia.”
I rendered NIN MDD in my father’s school or family,
because of what follows in both places; “They allowed the
family of Rabban Gamaliel the Greek learning, because they
were allied to the royal blood,” i. 6. they sprung of the stock
and lineage of David. They permitted that that family should
be brought up in that learning, because it became them for
their honour and nobility to want no kind of learning. But
this they did not freely allow others, and if they did not
permit the wisdom of the Greeks, we can hardly suppose they
excepted the Greek tongue ; especially when we find it in the
very terms of the decree, ““ Let no man teach his son ΓΛ
Greek.” Upon what I have already said, I cannot but make
these following remarks :
I. What an effectual bar they laid in their own way against
the reading of the New Testament, when they so renounced
the Greek tongue: which God had now honoured beyond
their Syriac, though they will have that so much graced both
in the law, prophets, and holy writings.
II. That even those who understood little else but Greek
would very hardly admit the reading of the law and the
prophets in their synagogues in the Greek tongue; in that
it was so very grateful to their countrymen, and the decrees
and canons of the elders did either require, or at least per-
mit, an interpreter in the reading of the Bible in their syna-
gogues.
IIT. How! probable a thing is it, that those Jews, who
having lived amongst the Gentiles understood no other lan-
guage but the Greek ; for that very thing grew the less valu-
able with their own nation that had retained the common use
of the Hebrew tongue, and were had in some lower esteem
than others.
2. If therefore they stood so affected towards the Greek
learning, what value must they have for the Greek tongue?
Grant that it were in some esteem amongst them, because,
indeed, most of the learned Rabbins did understand it; yet
! English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 661.
Ch. vi. 1.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 61
what account must they make of those Jews that knew no
other language but™ the Greek? Surely they must be looked
upon as in the lower, yea the lowest degree of Jews, who were
such strangers to the language so peculiar to that nation,
that is, the Hebrew. Such are those whom we find men-
tioned in Hieros. Sotah": “R. Levi. Ben Chajathah, going
down to Czesarea, heard them pnonbss YW PAP reciting
their phylacteries in Greek, and would have forbidden them :
which when R. Jose heard, he was very angry, and said, If a
man doth not know how to recite M°VW in the holy tongue,
must he not recite them at all? let him perform his duty in
what language he can.”
Czsarea Philippi is the scene of this story, a city that
the Rabbins make very frequent and honourable mention of
in both the Talmuds. This being one of the cities in Deca-
polis, which were all under the Gentile or Greek jurisdiction,
it seems there might be some Jews there that understood
Greek, but not Hebrew. Otherwise they would, doubtless,
have said over their phylacteries in the Hebrew, though they
could not do it in the holy tongue.
3. There were many Jews in several countries, and those
very probably to whom both the languages of Hebrew and
Greek were their mother-tongues. The Hebrew in their own
country, and the Greek among the Grecians; the Hebrew
in the families and synagogues of the Jews; the Greek
amongst their fellow-citizens the Gentiles. Such was Paul
of Tarsus, a Greek city; and yet was he a “ Hebrew of the
Hebrews,” Phil. iii. 5. And such those of Cyprus and Cy-
rene seem to be, who are mentioned chap. xi. 19,20; who
in Cyprus, Pheenice, and Antioch itself, preached the word
of God amongst the Hebraizing Jews (though perhaps they
might also speak the Greek tongue), and at length to the
Hellenists in Antioch, i. e. ‘ the Jews who understood nothing
but Greek,’ to whom the Hebrew tongue was perfectly un-
known. For so I would distinguish the Hellenists from the
Jews in that place ; and not oppose them to the Jews, as if
they were not Jews themselves. And let me crave the
reader’s leave to give my judgment of these Hebrews and
Hellenists in these following particulars :
m [Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 707- τ ΟΠ tai. 2:
62 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vi. 1.
I. That the Hellenists were Jews, dwelling among the
Gentiles, and not at all skilled in the Hebrew tongue. The
apostle in that division of his, which he so oftentimes useth,
of ᾿Ιουδαῖοι kat°EdAnves, Jews and Greeks, meaning by Greeks
all other nations excepting the Jewish only, speaks chiefly
to the capacity of the vulgar, to whom, by reason of the late
circumjacent empires of the Greeks, that way of expressing
the Gentiles was most known and familiar; nor perhaps was
it so very safe at that time to have brought in the Romans in
that antithesis.
But may the word Hel/enist be taken with that latitude on
the other side, that the phrase may be applied not to the
Jews only who understood nothing but Greek, but to all the
Jews also that did not understand Hebrew? Perhaps the
strict etymology of the word may make something against it ;
but should it be granted, it would not be of so absurd a con-
sequence if we do but except the Parthians, Medes, Elamites,
and the rest of those eastern countries who were not of the
Greek or Macedonian, but the Persian and Babylonish cap-
tivity or transmigration. For the very word Hellenist, espe-
cially as it is opposed to Hebrew, seems to intend some such
thing; viz. that those who are called Hebrews should be those
who were of the captivity and dispersion beyond the river ;
and those that go under the denomination of Hel/enists are
those who after their return from this captivity have suffered
some other removal or scattering among the Greek or western
countries, and understood no other language but of those
countries only, having lost the use of what was originally
their native tongue, viz. the Hebrew or Chaldee.
II. As to the HeSrews, I suppose there are hardly any will
deny but that all in general might be so called that used the
Hebrew as their own mother-tongue. Nor ean I imagine for
what other reason Paul of Tarsus should go under the de-
nomination of a Hebrew, but because the Hebrew tongue in
his father’s family was his mother-tongue, and the Greek was
the mother-tongue of the place where he was born. But that
we may inquire a little more strictly into the peculiar pro-
priety of this title and denomination, let us propound this
question,—viz. to whom that Epistle of St. Paul to the /He-
brews was particularly written ?
Ch. vi. 3. | Exercitatious upon the Acts. 63
I would say, to those of Palestine: for to them it is that
the name of Hebrew doth of greatest right belong; which
these two particulars (if [ mistake not) will make very plain°.
1. That it seems most proper that they should be termed
Hebrews who use the Hebrew tongue and none else as their
natural language, rather than they who use the Greek and
Hebrew tongue indifferently. 2. Indeed the Mesopotamians
used the Hebrew only as their mother-tongue, and ought in
reason to be accounted amongst the Hebrews in general ;
but they went commonly under the denomination of M75}
the captivity, because they dwelt still in the place whither
they had been led captive, and had not returned into their
own land. But those of Palestine who had returned thither
were the most properly called Hebrews, because they had passed
over from beyond the river, and had brought the transfucian
tongue along with them.
And as to what concerns this present matter, viz. the mur-
muring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews about an equal
distribution of the common charity, it may be made a question,
whether any other besides those of Palestine had as yet sold
their lands and patrimonies. For omitting that, by reason
of the distance of place, they could hardly yet be capable of
doing it; that concerning Barnabas’s selling his land in
Cyprus seems to hint some such thing, and that it was a
thing very extraordinary, and that had not been done else-
where. But our inquiry is chiefiy about tne Hel/enists, not the
Hebrews: and what we have said concerning both is ingenu-
ously submitted to the candour of the judicious reader.
Ver. 3P: "Avodpas ἐξ ὑμῶν μαρτυρουμένους ἑπτὰ, &e. Seven
men of honest report, &c.| 1. This office of the deacon (to
whom the charge and care of the poor was intrusted) was
translated from the Jewish to the Christian church. For
there belonged to every synagogue D°DIND ') three deacons,
with whom that care was deposited 4.
II. As to the number seven, I would not be curious. The
multitude of the poor and the increase of the church made it
necessary that the number of the deacons should exceed the
number that were allotted for every single synagogue ; why
ο English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 662. P Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 708.
ᾳ See Hor. in Matt. iv. 23, and elsewhere.
64 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vi. 5, 6.
they should be just seven, let him that hath confidence enough
pretend to assign a particular reason. Only from the number
and character of the men, I cannot but eall to mind the ΠΣ
ΓΤ AW seven good men of the city frequently mentioned by
the Rabbins: and I would suppose them chosen both out of
the number of the hundred and twenty mentioned chap. i. 15,
and also by them only, and not the whole church in general.
Ver. 5: Kat Νικόλαον προσήλυτον ᾿Αντιοχέα: And Nicolas a
proselyte of Antioch.| 1. Whereas this Nicolas only is termed
a prosclyte, it makes it evident that all the rest, excepting
himself, were Jews, however they might be known by Greek
names. Nor yet would 1 call them Hellenists, but Hebrews
rather; who understood Greek indeed (and for that reason
the care of the Hellenists was committed to them), but yet
the Hebrew was their own mother-tongue. For it is hardly
supposable that Stephen, when he pleaded his cause before the
Sanhedrim and the whole multitude, would plead it in Greek,
though he understood it well.
II. It is so constant an opinion of the ancients that the
most impure sect of the Nicolaitans derived their name and
filthy doctrines from this Nicolas', that so much to distrust
the thing would look like contradicting antiquity. But if it
were lawful in this matter freely to speak one’s thoughts, I
should conjecture (for the honour of our Nicolas), that the
name might take its derivation from 879393 Wecola, Let us eat
toaether ; those brutes animating one another to eat things
offered to idols. Like those in Isa. xxii.13, SMW Wa Pape
“orm Let us eat flesh and drink wine.
Ver. 6: ᾿Επέθηκαν αὐτοῖς tas χεῖρας: They laid their hands
on them.| We read of this or that Rabbin constituting dea-
cons in this or that synagogue, but not a word about laying on
of hands in that action': and no wonder, when even in the
promotion of their elders they commonly used only some form
of words, and not this rite or ceremony; which we observe in
notes upon chap. xiii. The apostles in this place and else-
where retain the ancient usage ἐπιθέσεως χειρῶν, of imposition
of hands. At other times frequently that they might, in or-
daining any to the ministry", impart to them the gift of the
r Tren. lib. 1. cap. 27). Epiphan. t Hieros. Peah, fol. 21.1.
lib. i. heres. 5, &c. ἃ English folio edition, vol. ii.
8 5 p. 663.
pDITE.
Ch. vi. 9.j Hxercitations upon the Acts. 65
~ Holy Ghost; here, that they might ordain persons to the
office of deacons without the gift of the Holy Ghost: for
these seven had been so endowed already, ver. 3.
Ver.g: ᾿Εκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης Λιβερτίνων" Certain
of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Liber-
tines.| Libertines, i.e. servants that had received their freedom,
ealled in the Jewish writings D-VAWVW, which,
I. Must be understood of servants that were of the Jewish
nation: for this was a rule amongst them*, oid “IDS
2242/3) ΞῸ ποῦ “ It is not lawful to make a Canaanite (or
Gentile) servant free: and if any one doth make such a one
free, he transgresseth the law, WAyA Dia OF biyd they shall
be your bondmen Sor ever, Levit. xxv. 46: “but if any one do
make him free, he is made free.” There is a dispute about
this matter in Sotahy: “ R. Ishmael saith, ‘There is only
NW? a license?” granted (if you have a mind) of keeping ἃ
Canaanite a bondman for ever. ‘ But R. Akibah saith, ‘ It
is MAW @ binding command,” that every one who hath a
Canaanite servant is bound to keep him in his service, and
never to make him free. If it should be granted what R.
Ishmael would have, that a man might, if he please, make a
Gentile servant free, yet it is not likely there could be a whole
synagogue of such so made free.
Il. Those, therefore, ΓΤ servants that had their
JSreedom, whom the Talmudic writers so frequently speak of,
they were certain Jews, who had either been sold into bondage
by the Sanhedrim for theft, or who had sold themselves for
mere poverty, and had now regained their freedom anew.
Exod. xxi. 2: “Vay Tay MI2M %D If thou buy a Hebrew
servant. “If thou? buy him from the hand of the Sanhedrim
who sell him for his thieving ; or if he have sold himself through
mere necessity.”
In the servitude of these there were these differences. “ It*
is a tradition: He that selleth himself is sold for six years, or
for more than six: he that is sold by the Sanhedrim is sold
but for six years only. He that selleth himself is not bored
through the ear with an awl: he that is sold by the Sanhe-
x Maimon. Avadim, cap. 2. @ Kiddushin, fol. 14. 2.
y Fol. 3.1. b Exod. xxi. 6.
z R. Solomon upon the place.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. ¥
66 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vi. 9.
drim is bored through. He that selleth himself, they provide
no viaticum for him: he that is sold by the Sanhedrim, they
do provide for hm. A man that selleth himself, his master
cannot give him a Canaanitish handmaid to wife: to him that
is sold by the Sanhedrim, he may.”
III. In what manner these are made free, either by paying
a price, or by the year of jubilee, or by the seventh year, or
upon any other oceasions, haying a writing of their freedom
given them, Maimonides treats largely in¢ Avadim; and
the Talmudic writers in the place already quoted, and else-
where.
I question not but the Λιβερτίνοι, the Libertines, in this
place were such; and that our historian doth by this phrase
render the word OD ΓΙ, than which nothing was more
commonly known in that nation, or more commonly men-
tioned in Jewish writers. And if so, then may we see what
dregs of people, what a lousy tribe (if I may so speak), rose
up against our most blessed martyr; such as had been for-
merly either beggars or thieves, afterward slaves; and were
now little else but a pack of knaves.
Κυρηναίων" Cyrenians.| What Cyrene that was from whence
these Cyrenians are so called, St. Luke points to us, Acts ii, by
its neighbourhood to Libya: which whether the interpreters
rightly understand when they render Avr by Cyrene, let us
consult themselves and see. So the Vulgar, and the Alexan-
drian MS. in 2 Kings xvi.9g; the Vulgar and Targum in
Amos 1. 5:
Whether these Cyrenians, mentioned by St. Luke here and
elsewhere, took their denomination from the city Cyrene or
the country of Cyrene is hardly worth our inquiring. Strabo
describes the city’, and Pliny the country®; but neither of
them says any thing of the Jews dwelling there. However,
Dion Cassius in the Life of Trajanf speaks it out; Ἔν τούτῳ
ot κατὰ Κυρήνην ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ὅσο. “Τὰ the mean time, the Jews
who dwelt about Cyrene, under the conduct of one Andrew,
fall upon both Romans and Greeks, tear their flesh, devour
their entrails, besmear themselves with their blood, and cover
themselves with their skins. They sawed many of them asunder
ς Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 709. e Lib. v. cap. 5.
a Lib. xvii. 3. f [ Hist. Rom. Ixviii. 32.]
Ch. vi. 9.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 67
from the crown of the head; they threw many to the beasts,
and forced several of them to fight one with another: so that
they destroyed at least two hundred thousand men.” It must
surely be an infinite number of Jews that could commit so
great a slaughter (the like the Jews did in Egypt and Cyprus).
It might be a wonder how so vast a multitude of Jews could
be got together in those countries; but this is not our present
inquiry.
_ Thats which is rather to be discussed is, what language the
Cyrenian Jews used. I would say Greek ; for that was the
language of Cyrene, the city having been built by the Gre-
cians, and the whole country under the government of the
Ptolemies, as Strabo tells us in the place before quoted. I
would reckon them, therefore, among the /Tellenisis, to whom
the Hebrew tongue was strange and foreign; unless that this
synagogue, having been conversant at Jerusalem, might per-
haps have learned the language there.
᾿Αλεξανδρέων" Alexandrians.| We met with a synagogue of
Alexandrians in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Jewish writers.
“ There is a story of R. Eliezer Ben Zadoc, that he took
omyiosbs Sw non mn the synagogue of the Alexan-
drians that was in Jerusalem, YIAZ AA MWY) and turned τέ
to his own use: word for word, did in it all his business» :
suport 55 all his pleasure.
There is a dispute in the place newly quoted, whether it be
lawful to alienate a synagogue from its sacred to a common
use: and it is distinguished betwixt. TTT by mown ma
the synagogue of one man, and ὩΣ Ἢ by now maa public
synagogue. And upon permitting that the former may be
alienated, but the latter not, there is this story, which I have
newly quoted objected to the contrary; and this passage
further added, yoy Sw om wy omyoshs The
Alexandrians build that synagoque at their own charge ; which
doth both attest to what our sacred historian mentions of a
synagogue of Alexwandrians at Jerusalem; and argues that
they were divers synagogues here spoken of, one of the Liber-
tines, another of the Cyrenians, and so of the rest: which may
be so much the more credible, if that be true which is related
& English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 664.
h Hieros. Megil. fol. 73. 4. Juchas. fol. 26. 4.
F 2
68 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vi. 15, &e.
in the same place, viz. that there were four hundred and eighty
synagogues in Jerusalem.
Kat τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας" And of them of Cilicia.| St.Paul seems
to have been of this synagogue, but of the school of Gamaliel :
for the Jewish youth, sent out of far countries to Jerusalem
for education, being allotted to this or that synagogue, chose
this or that master for themselves according to their own
pleasure. St. Paul had been brought up in a Greek academy
from his very childhood, viz. that of Tarsus: I call Tarsus
both an academy, and a Greek one too, upon the eredit of
Strabo, who speaks thus concerning iti; Tapods κτίσμά ἐστι
τῶν μετὰ Τριπτολέμου πλανηθέντων ᾿Αργείων κατὰ ζήτησιν ᾿Τοῦς"
Tarsus was built by the Araives that wandered with Triptolemus
in the search of Io. And a little after; Τοσαύτη δὲ τοῖς ἐνθάδε
σπουδὴ πρός τε φιλοσοφίαν, ἕο. “They of Tarsus had so great
a love to philosophy and all liberal sciences, that they excelled
Athens, Alexandria, and if there were any other place worth
naming, where the schools and disputes of philosophy and all
human arts were maintained.” Hence is it so much the less
strange that St. Pau! should be so well stocked with the Greek
learning, and should quote in his discourses the poets of that
nation, having been educated in so famous a university from
his very youth.
Ver. 15: ‘Qoel πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου: As it had been the face of
an angel.| God himself by a miracle bears witness to the
innocence of this holy man, and shows he had done no wrong
to Moses, when he makes his face shine as Moses’s had for-
merly done, and gave him an angelicalk countenance like that
of Gabriel: for if he had said that “ Jesus should destroy
that place,” ὅσο. he had but said what Gabriel had said
before him.
CHAPAMIT}
Ver. 2: Τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ ὄντι ἐν Μεσοποταμίᾳ. Unto Abraham,
when he was in Mesopotamia.| “5 Abraham™ is like the friend
of a king, who, when he saw the king walking in darksome
galleries, gave light to him by a window: which when the
king saw, he said unto him, ‘ Because thou hast given me
i Geogr. lib. xiv. [5.] ! English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 665.
k Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 710. m Beresh. Rabba, fol. 32. 3
Ch. vii. 2.] HKuxercitations upon the Acts. 69
light through a window, come and give me light before my
face. So did the holy blessed God say to Abraham, ‘ Because
thou hast given light to me, MMMAMS) sow srowwonn
out of my Mesopotamia, and its companions, come and give
light to me in the land of Israel?” Whether or no it be
worth the while to inquire why God should term it my Meso-
potamia, as also what should be the meaning of FPN IAN
her consorts or companions; yet can I not but take notice that
this adjunct, doth once and again occur in the writings of the
Jews. “Ὁ seed" of Abraham my friend, I took thee from
the ends of the earth; ΤΥ ΣΙ NOW, viz. from
Mesopotamia and her companions. Who’ is he among you
that feareth the Lord? This is Abraham: who walketh in
darkness: who came FRFVIAMD NWO" out of Meso-
potamia and her consorts, and knew not whither ; like the man
that dwelleth in darkness.” It is written indeed ΘΝ.
as if it should be out of Spain; but I correct it by the au-
thority of the Aruch; and, indeed, the very sense itself cor-
rects it. The Gloss hath nothing but this trifling passage in
it; “I have found the interpretation of Mesopotamia, viz. that
it is the name of a city in Aram Naharaim.”
The geographers do indeed distinguish between 27680-
potamia and Babylon, or Chaldea; so in Ptolemy’s fourth
table of Asia, to omit other authors, Ἢ BaSvAwvia περιορί-
erat, ἀπὸ μὲν ἄρκτων Μεσοποταμίᾳ, &e.: The country of Ba-
bylon is bounded on the south by Mesopotamia,” &c. And
yet Babylon may in some measure be said to be in Jesopo-
tamia ; partly because it lay between the two rivers Euphrates
and Tigris, but especially according to the propriety of Serip-
ture language, because it was “ beyond the river.” Which
we may take notice was observed by the Vulgar interpreter
in Josh. xxiv. 3, where what in the Hebrew is, “ I took your
father Abraham WITT VAY from the other side of ahe flood,”
he hath rendered it, (1 took your father Abraham de Meso-
potamie finibus, from the borders of Mesopotamia.”
Josephus, speaking of Abraham and his removing trom
his country, hath this passageP, Av ἅπερ Χαλδαίων τε καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων Μεσοποταμιτῶν στασιασάντων πρὸς αὐτὸν, μετοικεῖν δοκι-
n Beresh. Rabba, fol. 48. 1. P Antiq. lib.i. cap. 8. [Hudson,
© Ihid. fol. 66. τ. p24 |e zat)
70 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. vii. 3.
μάσας, &e.: Wherefore the Chaldeans and other Mesopotamians
moving tumults against him, he thought fit to remove his seat, &c.
Where we see the Chaldeans, amongst others, are called those
of Mesopotamia ; nor indeed without cause, when, as Era-
tosthenes in Strabo tells usp, that ‘ Mesopotamia, with the
country of Babylon, is contained in that great compass from
Euphrates and Tigris.”
And so perhaps the Rabbin newly quoted distinguisheth :
that that Mesopotamia, which he makes to be called by God
“Ww my Mesopotamia, is Charran; where the worship of God
had been kept up in the family of Nahor, and which had been
the native country and breeder up of eleven patriarchs. And
so let PPNAN her consorts be Babylon and Chaldea ; for in
what other signification 7AM here can be taken, |
cannot well tell.
In that Stephen speaks of God appearing to Abraham
while he was yet in Chaldea, before he removed to Charran,
when Moses rather ascribes that passage to Terah his father,
Gen. xi, he speaks with the Vulgar, according to the coin-
monly received opinion of his countrymen; who not only
taught that Abraham acknowledged and worshipped the
true God, even while his father Terah worshipped idols ; but
further, that Terah was so zealous an idolater, that he de-
livered his son Abraham to Nimrod, to be east into a fiery
furnace. We have the tale in Bereshith Rabba4, ridiculous
enough. [{Fregerat Abrahamus idola Terachi, et dixit, ea
mutuis ictibus se confregisse, litigantia de farinze eis oblate
comestione. Suspicans Terachus se illusum FD) FAD
sn prehendit Abrahamum, et tradidit eum Nimrodo: qui
projecit eum in fornacem ignis. Ast Abrahamus exiit e for-
nace salyus" ete. ]
Ver. 3: Ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς γῆς σου καὶ ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας cov"
Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred.| 1 would
not confound this passage with that in Gen. ΧΙ, 1; for Ste-
phen, and indeed the thing itself, assures us that this was
spoken to Abraham in Chaldea, but that in Charran. Here
is no mention of his going “ from his father’s house,” as there
P Lib. ii. 1. ᾳ Fol. 42. 2. Talmudicarum loca,’ the eighth
τ From ‘ Pauca interserenda in tract, in Leusden’s edition, vol. iii.
quedam Horarum Hebraicarum et p. 102.—Ep.
Ch. vii. 4.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 71
is there. Nor did’ he indeed depart ‘from his father’s
house” when he removed from Ur of the Chaldeans, for he
took his father and whole family along with him. But he
departed when he removed from Charran, leaving his father
buried behind him, and Nahor his brother with his family.
Ver. 4: Mera τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, &e. When his
Sather was dead, §c.| Here ariseth a difficulty, and upon that
a controversy, which we may take in in the words of R. Solo-
mon upon Gen. xi: “ And Terah died in Charran, that is,
more than threescore years after Abraham had left Charran
and had settled in the land of Canaan. For it is written,
‘Abraham was seventy-five years of age when he went out of
Charran, and Terah was seventy years old when Abraham was
born. Behold, Terah was one hundred and forty-fivet years
of age when Abraham left Charran, and he had a great many
years yet behind.” There remained, indeed, according to this
calculation, sixty years.
I. In that whole chapter there is no mention of the death
of any person there named, before or beside that of Terah.
Where, by the way, we may take notice of the boldness of
’ the Greek interpreters, who to every one of those persons
have annexed καὶ ἀπέθανε, and he died, directly against the
purpose of Moses and the mind of the apostle, Heb. vii. 3.
Now, therefore, why, when Moses had passed over the death
of all the rest that had been reckoned up before in that cata-
logue, should it be put in concerning Terah only that “ he
died in Charran,” were it not to shew that Abraham did not
remove from thence till after his father’s decease there? This
R. Solomon, even while he is defending the contrary, seems
something apprehensive of ; for thus he expresseth himself:
‘“Why doth the Scripture tell of the death of Terah before it
mentions Abraham’s removal? viz. lest the matter should be
made public, and men should say, ‘ Abraham did not give
that honour to his father that he ought to have done, relin-
quishing him now in his old age, and going away from him.’
The Scripture therefore speaks of him as now dead, because
the wicked, even while they are alive, are accounted for
dead.”
How is this Rabbin mistaken! For Terah now is no
S English folio edit., vol. ii. p.666. τ Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 711.
12 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vii.-4.
wicked man, nor an idolater, but converted; and therefore
Moses makes him chief in that removal out of Chaldea that
his conversion might be known, although the command con-
cerning the departure from that country came first to Abra-
ham. And if it was not lawful for Abraham to have forsaken
his father, being yet an idolater, much less was it so when he
was now become a worshipper of the true God.
II. It is indeed said, that “ Terah lived seventy years,
and begat Abraham, Nahor,and Haran :” but as it is against
reason to suppose they were all begot in one year, so there
is no necessity to think they were begot in the order they
are placed in in the story. Here that common maxim in the
Rabbins takes place; δ 23 WN) OF Ps There 18
no first and last in the holy Scripture, i. 6. the order of the
story does not necessarily determine the time of it. And
the Gemarists themselves, however they suppose that Abra-
ham might be older than Nahor one year, and Nahor than
Haran one year; yet do they at length conclude, not
MMT NOV OITA perhaps Abraham was the youngest of his
brethren: which they also confirm out of the order observed
in numbering the sons of Noah, where Sem is first in the
catalogue, though he was younger than Japhet.
It is commonly received amongst the Jews that Sarah,
Abraham’s wife, was the daughter of his brother Haran; and
that not without reason. FTW W MDD Lscah (say they) 18
the same with Sarah. And Josephus speaks it out, as a thing
of ancient tradition ; ᾿Αράνης μὲν, καταλιπὼν υἱὸν A@rov, καὶ
Σάρραν καὶ Μελχὰν θυγατέρας, ἐν Χαλδαίοις ἀπέθανεν: Haran,
leaving one son, Lot, and Sarah and Melcha, two daughters,
died in Chaldea*. If therefore Sarah, who was but ten years
younger than Abraham, was Haran’s daughter, which seems
to be in some measure confirmed, Gen. xx. 12, we can by no
means suppose Abraham to have been the firstborn amongst
the sons of Terah, but Haran rather; unless we will trifle
with some of the Rabbins, and say that Haran begat Melcha
when he was but six or eight years old. But they conclude
at length a little more rationally, if 1 understand what they
mean ; w> wn NP [VAI AT they reckon them up ac-
cording to their wisdom.
ἃ Sanhedr. fol. 69. 2. x Antiq. lib. i. cap. 7. [Hudson, p. 21.] [i. 6. 3.]
Ch. vii. 14.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 73
Conceive therefore Abraham born, not in the seventieth, but
in the hundred and thirtieth year of Terah; and that these
words here recited by Stephen were spoken to him in “ Ur of
the Chaldeans ;” but those mentioned Gen. xii. 1 spoken in
Charran, andy thus join the story: “ Terah died in Charran:
then said God unto Abraham,” &c.
Ver. 14: Ἔν ψυχαῖς ἑβδομηκονταπέντε. Threescore and fif-
teen souls.| The Hebrew copies have it everywhere but
‘“‘threescore and ten.” So also Josephus’; εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον,
&e. ‘ He came to Egypt with his sons, and all their sons ;
ἦσαν δὲ ot πάντες ἑβδομήκοντα, they were in all threescore and
ten.” Again® elsewhere, οὗ μετὰ ἑβδομήκοντα τῶν πάντων, &e.
“who with threescore and ten, all that were with him, going
down into Egypt,” &e.
So Hzekiel, Tragoed. in Euseb. de Przepar. Evangel. :
"Ad οὗ ᾿Ιακὼβ γῆν λιπὼν Χαναναῖαν
Κατῆλθ᾽ εἰς Αἴγυπτον, ἔχων ἑπτάκις δέκα
Ψυχὰς σὺν αὐτῷ"
From the time that Jacob, having left the land of Canaan, came
down into Egypt, having seven times ten souls with him. So the
very Greek version itself in Deut. x. 22; ἐν ἑβδομήκοντα
ψυχαῖς, Χο. ‘“ Thy fathers went down into Egypt with thice-
score and ten persons : which is strange, when they have it in
another place’, ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε, threescore and fifteen. We
may easily discern that St. Luke here follows that version
that adds five grandchildren to Joseph, Gen. xlvi. 20, Machir
and Gilead, because of those words, Gen. 1. 22, “‘ the sons of
Machir, the son of Manasseh, brought up upon Joseph’s
knees :” and Sutelah, and Tahan, and Eden, because it is
said, “ Joseph saw Ephraim’s children unto the third genera-
tion.” Where, by the way, I cannot but think it strange
why the Greek interpreters should select these their addi-
tional persons out of the sons of Joseph, rather than any
other of the patriarchs: and further take notice, how, though
they reckon up nine children of Joseph— Now the sons of
Joseph which were born to him in the land of Egypt were
nine souls,” ver. 27—yet they name but seven. Josephus the
y English folio edit., vol. ii. p.667. b Lib. ix. cap. 28.
z Antiq. lib. ii. cap. 4. [il. 7. 4.] ¢ Vid. Gen. xlvi. 27. and Exod.
a Thid. cap. 5. [ii. 9. 3. | ἜΤΗ
74 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vii. 14.
historian speaking of those threescore and ten persons that
went down into Egypt, “1 will reckon them up (saith he),
that I may satisfy those who would pretend we took not our
original from Mesopotamia, but from Egypt.” It is strange
therefore that the interpreters would add those that were
actually born in Egypt. But it seems that, when they would
confound the true number, they chose those upon the account
of those words in Gen. 1. which we mentioned.
As4 to these children of Ephraim and others, whose story
is mentioned 1 Chron. vii. 20, the masters of traditions tell
some ridiculous tales of them; viz. that having not counted
right as to the years of their bondage in Egypt, they went to
invade the land of Palestine before the appointed time, and
fell by the sword of the Gittitese: but that they came to
life again with those whom Ezekiel raised from the dead,
chap. xxxvii.f
I have, in my notes upon Luke iii, offered my conjecture
why the interpreter should confound the number, and put
threescore and jiftcen instead of threescore and len: as also why
the evangelist should follow that version and that number :
and am of the same mind still. In the meantime, wondering
at their retaining the true number, Deut. x. 22, where Nobi-
lius in his Scholia tells us, ‘‘ Josephus in his second book of
Antiquities, writing of Jacob, hath set the number.” (I have
quoted the passage already.) “ And St. Jerome in his ques-
tions upon Genesis, witnesseth that the Septuagint so writ it.
Other copies have ἐν ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ πέντε ψυχαῖς, threescore
and fifteen souls.”
If the Septuagint wrote so in this place, when elsewhere
they have threescore and fifteen, | know no other reason ean
be rendered of it but that Moses is here introduced speaking
to the people of Israel, who very well knew the certain and
true number; but elsewhere, where it is rendered by them
threescore and fifteen, he is writing a history for the whole
world, to whom the precise number was not so well known.
But one may suspect the same pen did not translate the Book
of Deuteronomy that had translated the Books of Genesis
and Exodus. So Caphtorim in Gen. x. 14, by the interpreter
4 Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 712. e Targ. in Cant. ii. 7.
Γ Sanhedr. fol. 92. 2
Ch. vii. 16.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 75
of that Book is rendered Γαφθορεὶμ, Gaphthoreim ; or as it is
in MS. Alex. Καφθοριεὶμ, Caphthoriim; but in the Book of
Deuteronomy, chap. ii. 23, it is Καππάδοκες, Cappadocians.
Ver. 168: Μετετέθησαν εἰς Συχέμ Were carried over into
Sychem] mmxp Jat Snb ons aw obryd Beer
let a man donk his disciple concisely, or briefly. So that a
short way of speaking, especially in a thing plain, was not
strange amongst the Jews: which rule if Stephen followed in
this place, he might do it more safely and unblamably in a
story so well known.
I. It was very commonly, and without any kind of doubt,
received amongst them, that the bones of the twelve patri-
archs, as well as those of Jacob, were carried out of Egypt
into Canaan. “ Iti is written, I will go down with thee into
Egypt, riby- ΞΞ TOYN "208 and even in gomg up I will
make thee to go up, Gen. ΧΙν ἡ. aby ἘΞ κῃ Md What are
we taught by ΠΕ DQ even in going up? He saith, I will make
thee to go up, and Τ will make all the other tribes to go up
too: teaching thereby WS Mary Moy ΣΦ waw bow
soy Www that every tribe should carry up the bones of the
patriarch of his tribe with wt.” Take notice by the way that
the Seventy render aby DA εἰς τέλος, unto the end.
“'Thek bones of all’ the patriarchs were carried out of
Egypt, and buried in the land of Canaan: as it is written,
And ye shall carry up my bones with you,” Gen. 1. 251.
II. Thus far therefore Stephen speaks with the consent of
that nation, viz. That the bones of the patriarchs were con-
veyed out of Egypt into Canaan. But what can we say as to
their being buried in Sychem? Doubtless he spake according
to the common received opinion amongst them in this thing
also; though I cannot but say that all Jewish writers, as far
as 1 have met with, are wholly silent in it. Nay, Josephus
himself will have them buried in Hebron, and that before the
Israelites came out of Egypt™.
The Talmudists speak very much of Joseph’s being buried
in Sychem, and amongst other things say this, ‘ That they
& English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 668. 1 See also Beresh. Rabba, fol.
h Gloss. in Zevachin, ΤΟΙ͂Σ 2: 1. 115. 3. Gloss. in Maccoth. 11. 2.
i Hierosol. Sotah, fol. 17. 2. R. Sol. in Exod. xiii. 19.
k Gloss in Bava Kama, fol. 92.1. m Antiq. lib. 11. cap. 4. [1]. 8. 2.]
76 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vii. 16.
stole him from Sychem, and restored him to Sychem again®.”
But as to the burying of the other patriarchs there, they
have not one word. Benjamin also in his Itinerary, speaking
of Sychem, mentions the sepulchre of Joseph, and none but
that. And so do the Cippi Hebraici°, as the learned Hot-
tinger translates them; * From Sychem at the distance of a
sabbath day’s journey lies a village called murda Belata,
where Joseph the Just, of blessed memory, lies buried.”
I conceive the reason why the Jews are so silent in this
matter may be, because they fear it would be a reproach to
themselves, and too great an honour for the Samaritans, that
the patriarch’s bones should lie amongst them. As to Jo-
seph’s being buried there, there could be no denial of that,
because the Scripture speaks it in express terms that he was
buried in Sychem: but it is very grievous for them to ac-
knowledge that all the other heads of the nation and tribes
should lie there, where the apostasy of the ten tribes first
began, and after their expulsion the odious nation of the
Samaritans were seated: and for this very reason one might
argue that Stephen would never have mentioned such a thing,
if it could have been contradicted by them. The masters of
the traditions indeed do tacitly yield that the eleven patriarchs
were not buried in Hebron, when they admitted but four
couples there, viz. Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaae
and Rebekah, Jacob and Leahp. And if so, where were
they buried? If we do but consider how the great charge and
eare of public affairs was committed to Joshua, who was of
the stock and lineage of Joseph, and from that very relation
had a particular concern with Sychem, probability itself would
argue (were there no other proof for it), that he would have
as strict a care of the patriarchs now dead, as his progenitor
Joseph had had of them while they were yet alive.
Whenced I cannot but wonder that the Samaritans dwell-
ing in Sychem, having in their letters, sent lately into Eng-
land, made mention of the sepulchres of Joseph, Eleazar,
Phinehas, the seventy elders, Eldad and Medad, that are
with them to this day, should say nothing of the sepulchres
of the eleven patriarchs. But so long as all the other tribes
π΄ Sotah, fol. 13. 2. ° [p. 52.] P Sotah, fol. 13. 1.
4 Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 713-
Ch. vii. 16.] Exercitations upon the Acts. vi.
are in mean esteem amongst them, and the tribe of Ephraim,
i.e. (if I may so speak) the Samaritan tribe, being of greatest
account, it is the less wonder if they are not so very solicit-
ous, at least do not boast so much of the heads of the other
tribes.
Καὶ ἐτέθησαν ἐν τῷ μνήματι ὃ ὠνήσατο ABpaay τιμῆς ἀργυρίου,
παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Εμμὸρ τοῦ Συχέμ: And laid in the sepulchre that
Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the
father of Sychem.| This passage is not a little obscure : not
very unlike that in Gen. 1.5; Joseph saith, “ My father made
me swear, saying, ‘ Lo, I die’ In my grave 1) ΓΞ Ws
which I have digged for me, or which I have purchased for my-
self, there shalt thou bury me.” I will not contend about the
word ὙΠ, whether it should be rendered, L have digged, as
the Greek, Jonathan’s Targum', ὅσο. have rendered it; or
whether it should be, 7 have bought, as Onkelos, the Syriac,
and the Talmudists. Be it the one or the other, seeing the
discourse is plainly about the cave of Machpelah, how can we
say either this or that is true? I little question the former
sense: for when Abraham had bought the cave, and digged a
sepulchre in it for himself and Sarah, reason will tell us that
Isaac did the same for himself and Rebekah, and Jacob for
himself and Leah; for they both dwelt in Hebron as well as
Abraham. But if we will admit of the latter sense, which the
Rabbins tenaciously adhere to, there is no less a difficulty oc-
curs than what is now before us. They indeed remove it by
this blessed comment, viz. that when Jacob purchased the
birthright from Esau, he did, by a peculiar writing and deed
of contract, include this cave within the bargain, as his own
propriety. We may read the whole figment in Sota/ and the
Targum of Jonathan in the places above quoted.
But to take this matter in hand a little more seriously.
I. It had been enough for Stephen to have made mention
of the burial of Jacob and the patriarchs, without any addi-
tion about the purchase of the burying-place, if he had not a
design to hint something peculiar in the mention he makes of
it. Nor did it make for his cause at all, to tell over a bare
story, which they all knew, if there were not something in-
cluded in it that made for his defence. He had said before,
τ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 669.
78 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vii. 16.
ver. 5, concerning Abraham, that God had not given him any
‘inheritance in the promised land, no, not so much as to set
his foot on:” and here he tells them, that even Jacob and the
patriarchs had no place where they should be buried, but
what they themselves bought for a sum of money: ‘ And will
you, O ye persecutors, upon the mere promise of the land
made to your fathers, be so confident as to persuade yourselves
it will be your abiding place for ever? and that, howsoever
you behave yourselves towards God, you cannot be removed
from it ?”
II. *O ὠνήσατο ᾿Αβραὰμ τιμῆς ἀργυρίου" That Abraham bought
for a sum of money. Thus far is no difficulty, when the dis-
course is of the burial of Jacob in the cave of Machpelah ;
but the knot is in the following words, παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Εμμὸρ
τοῦ Συχέμ, of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. That
the text is not interpolated (as Beza and Heinsius would
have it) appears from the universal consent both of the
copies and the translations. lor those that would have it
interpolated cannot show one copy reading it otherwise ;
and all the versions follow this reading in the very words
wherein the difficulty most lieth. The Syriac, indeed, refers
the words to Jacob only, rendering it in the singular number
DION NWS And he was carried and laid, &e.; but yet
owns the following words, “in the sepulchre that Abraham
bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor,” where all
the difficulty lies. So also, as to that clause, other versions
have it.
Now, as to what is objected, let us take it in the words of
Bereshith Rabbas: ““ R. Juda Bar Simon saith, ‘ This is one of
the three places’ (viz. the cave Jacob bought, Gen. xxxili. 19)
‘concerning which the nations of the world cannot reproach
Israel, saying that they took it by force and rapine. The
places are these, the cave of Machpelah, the house of the
sanctuary, and the sepulchre of Joseph. The cave of Mach-
pelah, as it is written, ‘ And Abraham hearkened to Ephron,
and weighed to Ephron, ὅσο. Gen. xxiii.16. The house of the
sanctuary, according as it is said, ‘So David gave to Ornan
for the place, &c. 1 Chron. xxi. 25. And the sepulechre of
Joseph, as it is said, ‘ He (Jacob) bought a parcel of a
® Fol. 89. 1.
Ch. vii. 16. ] Exercitations upon the Acts. 1
field,’ ὅσο. Gen. xxxiii.19. DDW MIP App Jacob bought
Shechem,’ or that parcel of it: therefore, Abraham did not,
But,
I. Let us take a little view of that passage, Gen. xii. 6:
‘“‘ Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sychem,
ryan POs TY Gr. ἐπὶ τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλὴν, ἐο the high oak :
[Targ.] TVW Ww TW to the plain of Moreh.” Vulg. Usque
ad convallem illustrem, to the famous valley. Targ. Hieros. et
Samarit., to the vale of vision, ὅσο. But our inquiry is for the
place rather than the etymology. Deut.xi.29,30; ‘Thou shalt
put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon
mount Ebal. Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the
way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites,
who dwell in the champaign overagainst Gilgal "TV78& ES
ΤΥ besides the plains of Moreh ?”
Let us take the Talmudic comments upon this place :
“Whent the Israelites had passed over Jordan, they came
to mount Gerizim and mount Ebal, which are in the country
of Samaria, near Sychem, which is besides the plain of Moreh,
according as it is said, ‘ Are they not on the other side Jor-
dan,’ &e.? And it is said elsewhere, ‘ Abraham passed through
the land unto the place of Sychem to the plain of Moreh.’
What is" the plain of Moreh there, Gen. xii.6? It is Sychem.
And so the plain of Moreh is Sychem here also, Deut. xi. 30.”
“ R. Eliezer* Ben Jose saith, ‘In this thing have I accused
the Samaritan books of falsifying ; and I said unto them,
‘Ye have falsified fou law, and gained nothing by it; for
you say O3W ΓΤ "2 Sys the plain of Moreh which is Sychem:
for we confess that the plain of Moreh is Sychem.’” The
Samaritan text in Deut. xi. 30 hath ὩΣ bp myn vibes
the plain of Moreh near Sychem; but no such thing in Gen.
xil. 6 is added.
Ify the word μνήματι, in the sepulchre, did not lay some ob-
stacle in the way, I should easily conceive that Stephen had
his eye as intent (if not more) upon this place as upon the
eave of Machpelah. It is not said, that Abraham bought this
place, much less that he bought it for a burying-place : but
Ὁ Sotah, fol.gr.1. ἃ Leusden’s edit., vol.ii. p.714. | * Sotah, fol. 33.2.
Y English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 670.
80 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vii. 23.
however, tlfat he did buy it (though not under that notion of a
burying-place) seems probable, because this was the first place
in which he pitched his tent and built an altar: all which he
would hardly have done upon another man’s ground. It is
said of Jacob, that he bought a parcel of ground where he
had spread his tent, Gen. xxxiii.1g. And why should we not
think that Abraham did the same?‘ only it is not expressly
said so of him, as it is of Jacob.
It might be no improper question here, upon what condi-
tions Abraham, Isaae; and Jacob fed their cattle and main-
tained their families in the land of Canaan? Whether the
places and fields they occupied were common, and had no
proper owner? Whether Abraham, not far from Sychem, in
the plain of Moreh, in the disposal of himself and his flocks,
intruded upon another’s possession, or whether it was all
champaign, without any lord? It is probable it was neither one
nor the other: and therefore some third thing must be found
out, viz. that either they might purchase those lands, or take
them of the owners upon an agreed rent. It is said of
Abraham, that “ he planted a grove in Beersheba,” Gen. xxi.
33. How came he to any right in that piece of land? Had
that place no lord, no prince, no owner, till he came? If it
had any lord or owner (which is most probable), then it is
easy apprehending how Abraham might come by the posses-
sion of it, viz. by some sum of money, though there is no
mention made of it.
However, whether Abraham bought the plain of Moreh or
not, it is very evident, from the words of the protomartyr, that
the patriarchs were buried in that place, where he in his very
first entry upon that land had made his abode, where he had
received the first promise of the land by vision, and where he
erected his first altar. And 1 cannot believe but that either
St. Stephen or St. Luke would, in this their short way of
speaking, revive the memory of some such thing; viz. that
the patriarchs were buried in that very same place where
Abraham had made his first abode, where he had received the
first promise of the land; yet that they did not possess that
land any otherwise than in their graves.
Ver. 23: ‘Qs δὲ ἐπληροῦτο αὐτῷ τεσσαρακονταετὴς χρόνος, &e.
When he was*full forty years old.| The martyr speaks agree-
Ch. vil. 25, 42.] Huxercitations upon the Acts. 81
ably with the whole nation; ‘‘ Moses? was forty years in
Pharaoh’s court, and forty years in Midian, and forty years
he served Israel. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai exercised
merchandise forty years, was learning the law forty years,
and forty years he ministered to Israel. R. Akibah was {2
an illiterate person forty years; he bent himself to study forty
years, and forty years he ministered to Israel@.”
Ver. 25: ᾿Ενόμιζε δὲ συνιέναι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ, &e.
For he supposed his brethren would have understood, &c.}
Moses was endowed with a spirit of prophecy even in Pha-
raoh’s court, (to which that passage may refer, that “he was
mighty in words and in deeds,”) and knew himself designed
to redeem Israel out of Egypt; and so he thought that
people conceived of him too. For they could not but know
the story of his miraculous preservation in his infancy; his
providential education in a prince’s court; and especially
the apparent signs of a prophetic spirit in him. Which
though Moses himself speaks nothing of, yet doth Stephen
relate it, not without good authority and the consent of his
countrymen: who all suppose Moses miraculously born, and
as wonderfully saved in the ark of bulrushes; namely, that
he was conceived when his mother was a hundred and thirty
years of age, brought forth without any of the Bee of child-
birth, and born ST DW good, that 15, msvad PAT apt for
prophesying». Note by the way how that fiction of Josephus¢
concerning Pharaoh’s putting his crown upon the head of the
child Moses, and his throwing it to the ground, is told also
by the Jewish Rabbins4, Baby with this variation; that
Moses himself took the crown from Pharaoh’s head and put
it upon his own.
Ver. 42°: Μὴ σφάγια καὶ θυσίας προσηνέγκατέ pot, &e. Have
ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices, &c.| Kimchi upon
this place of Amos speaks out what the Jewish schools think
in this matter by a passage taken out of Chagigah': “ There
is a tradition concerning the daily saerifice made in mount
Sinai.. R. Eliezer saith, that there were rules indeed given
2 Beresh. Rabba, fol. 115. 3. ¢ Antiq. lib. ii. cap. 5. [1]. 9. 7.]
a Vid. et Shemoth Rabba, fol. ἃ Shemoth Rabb. fol. nas, 3.
ΤᾺ Θ᾽: © Hnglish folio edit., vol. ii. p.671.
Ὁ Sotah, fol. 12. 1. f Baby], fol. 6. 2.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. G
82 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vil. 43.
concerning it on mount Sinai, but the sacrifice itself was not
offered. R.Akibah saiths, It was offered, and from that
time hath not ceased. But what do I prove” (in these
words), ‘* Have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by
the space of forty years in the wilderness, O ye house of
Israel? viz. the tribe of Leyi, that had not committed ido-
latry, they offered; but Israel did not offer. And in those
words, ‘ the children of Israel kept the Passover in its time,’
seems to be some reproach reflected upon Israel; as hinting
that they had observed no Passover in the wilderness but
that.”
It is most certain that sacrifices were offered in the striking
of the covenant, Exod. xxiv. ; in the consecration of the altar
and the tabernacle; and in the celebration of that Passover:
and this was all done in Sinai before the fatal decree passed
of their not entering the land. But it may not without
reason be suspected that the daily sacrifices were continued
after that time; for we find live coals upon the altar, Numb.
xvi. 46, and it is not to be thought that fire would be per-
petually burning on the altar to no purpose ; but God’s com-
plaint seems to be about the free-will offerings that they
ceased ; and that none made oblations of their own good will.
Nor let any think it strange that the prophet, and after him
the protomartyr, counts up the time in that round sum of
forty years, when it was indeed but eight-and-thirty and a
half; for so doth God himself, Numb. xiv. 34.
Ver. 43: Kal ἀνελάβετε, &c. Yea, ye took up, &c.] The
word in Amos is OnNw, which if we might render with
R. Solomon in the future tense, “ And ye shall bear your idols
with you into captivity, as burdens laid upon your shoulders,”
it would take off a little of the difficulty that otherwise seems
to lie in this passage ; for it might be very reasonably ques-
tioned whether the Israelites ever did this in the wilderness :
but then this is directly contrary both to the Greek version
in that prophet, and now to the Holy Ghost in this place,
and to the very scope of the protomartyr in quoting it. For
he speaketh of God as giving up the people to worship the
host of heaven; and straightways suggests that they first
desisted from serving God, and then addicted themselves to
& Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 715.
Ch. vii. 43.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 83
the worshipping of idols. But the question is, whether the
discourse in this place is concerned in the idolatry they com-
mitted in the wilderness, or that in aftertimes. That it doth
not point at the idolatry in the wilderness these following
arguments seem to confirm :
I. Because there is no mention of any idolatry eommit-
ted in the wilderness after the golden calf besides that with
Baal-peor. And it is hardly imaginable that Moloch and
Baal-peor were the same, and that Moloch and Remphan
were not two different idols. Nor is it probable at all that
the sacred historian would have passed over such a piece of
wickedness, without taking any notice either of the fault or
punishment ; especially when as everywhere else the history
of their idolatry is related so very accurately. But not to
multiply arguments,
ΤΙ, If Stephen refer this idolatry of the Israelites to the
times after those in the wilderness, and in that sense inter-
prets the prophet, he speaks the same thing that was com-
monly known and received amongst the Jews; viz. that the
punishment of that sin of the golden calf descended and was
derived to following generations. “ R. Oshaiah” saith, that
to the times of Jeroboam the children of Israel sucked of one
calf,” (the Gloss is, Viz. that calf they made in the wilder-
ness ;) “but from that time forward they sucked of two, and
of a third too,” (the Gloss is, Those two of Jeroboam’s, and
the third of the wilderness.) “ΕΠ. Isaac saith, There is not
any instance of vengeance that comes upon the world wherein
there is not a twenty-fourth part of a pound of the first calf.
According as it is said,‘ In the day that I visit, I will visit
their sin upon them,’ Exod. xxxii. R.Chaninah saith, After
twenty-four generations” (the Gloss hath it, In the reign of
king Zedekiah), “ this verse was accomplished, as it is said;
‘He cried in mine ears with a loud voice, The visitations of
the city draw near, every man having his destroying weapon
in his hand,’ Ezek. ix. 1.”
Τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Moddx: The tabernacle of Molochi.} The
prophet Amos hath it ὈΞΞ Ὁ Map ΓΝ ONNwI; Lat.
Interlin., Et portastis Siccuth regem vestrum, i. e. Ve carried
Siccuth your king. So R.Solomon and Kimchi, “ Siccuth is
h Sanhedr. fol. 102. 1. i English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 672.
G2
84 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vii: 43-
the name of an 140]. For my part I am at a stand in this
matter; as also in what words the Chaldee paraphrast hath
rendered this clause. For in the books published amongst
us it is PIWDIIND NID MM; when as the Avuch, citing the
Targumist in this place, saith, MDD DWN aaah MSD
PDIIND “ Siccuth malchechem,’ with the Targumist is ‘ Succuth
pethacrecon. Observe pethacrecon, not pathcumareon: and
that it was so originally written in the Targumist I do very
much suspect, however Kimchi owns only the other reading.
For,
}. It isnot easy, 1 may say not possible, to give PIVIIND
that propriety in this place that it bears in Ezek. xiii. 18
and xvi. τό.
II. Whereas the same paraphrast renders sab in Isa.
Vill. 21 by FH ΓΘ, and oon in Zeph. i. 5 by PRIN,
it is the more probable that he may render ἘΣ 2 in this
place by PIAIN ; which word, it should seem, he useth for
some idol, or heathen god ; because when he would express a
king, taken in its proper sense, he always retains the usual
word $57. _ ‘If, therefore, according to the copy quoted by
the Aruch it should be read po 7sns, then the Chaldee ver-
sion falls in with the Greek, and shews that p2357 should
be rendered your Moloch: so that Moloch signifies an idol ;
and Siceuth not an idol, but σκηνὴ τοῦ Μολὸχ, the tabernacle of
Moloch: which seems the more likely from the agreement of
the two clauses σκηνὴ τοῦ Μολὸχ and ἄστρον τοῦ “Pear, the
tabernacle of Moloch and star of Remphan.
But who or what kind of god this Moloch should be, I will
not spend much time to find out*, this having been the busi-
ness of so many pens already; only this I cannot but observe,
that both Moloch and Remphan were certain figures that
represented some of the celestial luminaries, because he saith
he “ gave them up to worship the host of heaven,” &c.; and
that it is generally supposed that by Moloch was represented
the sun; partly because of the kingly name, and partly upon
the account of the fiery form and shape of the idol and the
fiery rites of its worship. It is also called Baal, Jer. xxxii.
35; “They built the high places of Baal, to offer their sons
k Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 716.
κ
Ch. vii. 43-] Exercitations upon the Acts. 85
to Moloch :” which whether it be the same idol that Ahab
brought in upon Israel might not be unworthy our con-
sidering. There may be some colour and hint of that bloody
worship in what the priests of Baal did to themselves ; “ They
cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till
the blood gushed out upon them!.””
Moloch (as the Jews describe him) was an image of brass,
having the face of a calf, his hands open like one ready to
receive something brought him from another. And so Dio-
dorus Siculus describes Saturn of Carthage: Ἦν δὲ zap’
αὐτοῖς ἀνδριὰς Κρόνου χαλκοῦς ἐκτετακὼς τὰς χεῖρας ὑπτίας, ἐκτε-
ταμένας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὥστε τὸν συντιθέντα τῶν παίδων ἀποκυλί-
εσθαι, καὶ πίπτειν εἰς τὸ χάσμα πλῆρες πυρός" They had an
emage of Saturn made of brass, stretching out his hands, ea-
tended towards the earth ; so that a child being put into them,
was thrown and rolled into a great gulf of fire™. There we
have also this passage out of Philo™ concerning the history of
the Pheenicians: Κρόνος τοίνυν, dv οἱ Φοίνικες ᾿Ισραὴλ προσα-
γορεύουσι, &e. “Saturn, therefore, whom the Pheenicians call
fsrael, having governed that country after his death, was
made the star called Saturn. Of his wife Anobret he had
one only-begotten son, whom therefore they call Jeoud ; that
being the term for an only-begotten son amongst the Phe-
nicians to this day. Upon the breaking in of a very destruc-
tive war upon the country, he takes his son, and having
decently adorned him, and prepared an altar for him, sacri-
ficed him on it.” This Israel by name was Abraham by the
character, from whom whether they derived by direful imi-
tation this horrid usage of sacrificing to Moloch, is no place
at present to dispute; the question rather might be, whether
the Israelites did act any such thing themselves in the wilder-
ness; whether with the tabernacle of the Lord they also
erected a tabernacle to Moloch too; whether, having slighted
the way of sacrificing beasts, they instituted the offering up of
their own children. Which how unlikely it was that Moses
should either suffer it to be done, or having been done should
pass it by in silence, and make no mention at all of it, any
one may judge. I shall conclude with that passage in Por-
' 1 Kings xviii. 28. ™ Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evang. lib. iv. cap. 16.
n [Ibid.]>.
86 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vii. 43.
phyrius quoted by the same Eusebius, worth our taking
notice of: Καταλυθῆναι δὲ τὰς ἀνθρωποθυσίας, &e. “ That
these sacrifices of men were abolished almost everywhere
Pallas tells us, who wrote excellently well concerning the mys-
teries of Mithra under Adrian the emperor.”
Kai τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν ‘Peupdv' And the star of your
god Remphan.| “In Amos it is }}9D, Chijun ; in the Seventy
ἱΡαιφὰν, Rephan. 1 would not in this place heap up what
learned men have said in this matter: upon these two hinges
the whole difficulty turns; first, to reconcile the Septuagint
with the prophet Amos; and then to reconcile St. Stephen,
or St. Luke, with the Septuagint.
I. Forasmuch as the Heb. yD Chijun is ‘Papav, Rephan,
in the Septuagint, I would not look for any thing gigantic in
the word Ῥαιφὰν, Rephan, but something rather weak and
infirm. Any one knows that ΓΒ and JD signify weak and
weakness ; and from thence perhaps the word ἱΡαιφὰν, Rephan,
may take its original, and not from S57, @ giant. And so
the same thing might be done by the interpreters in this
name that had been done by the Jews in the name of Beel-
zebul, viz. invented the name for mere contempt and reproach.
The naked and native signification of }}93 Chijun is firm, up-
right, stable ; and therefore is rendered by some in that place
basis, or foundation: a name, indeed, most unfit for an idol,
which is a lie, vanity, nothing. This the Septuagint being
apprehensive of might translate it by a word perfectly con-
trary, but more agreeable to the thing itself; viz. “Ραιφὰν,
Rephan, that is, in Hebrew, eee. weakness, infirmity : if “Pat-
φὰν, Rephan, does not denote ‘ Saturn’ in the Coptie lan-
guage, as Kircher tells us.
II. But how “Papa, Rephan, should be changed into ‘Peu-
av, there have been various, and those not impertinent, con-
jectures. The Syriac and Arabic retain JX and [NON
which, as tothe sense we have mentioned, sound properly enough
to eastern ears. And what if St. Luke or our martyr, that
they also (as much as might be) might sound the same thing
in the ears of the Greeks, should pronounce it by ἱΡεμφὰν,
Remphan ; where the sound of the word ῥεμβὸς, which sig-
nifies wandering or tottering, might be included.
Be it therefore that Moloch is the sun, and Remphan or
Ch. vii. 43.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 87
Chijun should be Saturn; we read of the introduction of Mo-
loch into the land of Israel, but of Chijun not at all, only in
the prophet Amos, and here in the mention of Remphan.
When I read that in r Kings xii. 30, “ That all the people
went to worship the calf in Dan,” and observe further that
Dan was ealled Panias, I begin to think that Φὰν, Phan, n
“Ῥαιφὰν, Rephan, and Ῥεμφὰν, Remphan, may have some re-
lation with that name; and that Dan is mentioned rather
than Bethel, because® the idolatry or calf of that place con-
tinued longer than that of Bethel.
Μετοικιῶ ὑμᾶς ἐπέκεινα Βαβυλῶνος" I will carry you away be-
yond Babylon.| But the Hebrew words of Amos are moi
mira beyond Damascus: so the Greek, ἐπέκεινα Δαμασκοῦ,
beyond Damascus.
I. Nothing was more usual in the schools and pulpits of
the Jews than for the reader or preacher to vary and invert
the text of the Scripture, to adapt and accommodate it to
his own sense. Hundreds of times we meet with this phrase
IPN bys in the Talmudic writers and the Jewish expositors,
Do not read this or that word so, but so, or so: where forsaking
the proper and genuine reading they put another in the
stead, that may better fall in with the matter they are upon.
Not that they reject or vilify the original text, but to bring
what they allege more ingeniously to their own purpose. 1
have known this done in some words wherein they keep
indeed to the same letters, but make the variation by the
change of vowels. Which shews, in the mean time, that
this was neither any strange thing amongst them, nor ac-
counted any crime; but received rather with applause, to
alienate the words of the Hebrew text from their native
and original reading, to deduce something either true in it-
self, or at least smooth and ingenious. And if Stephen here,
after the usage of the schools, quoting this passage of the
prophet Amos pirat odin beyond Damascus, had magi-
sterially said, as they were wont to do, SPN bse Do not
read it owt beyond Damascus, but bob beyond Babylon,
it would have gone down well enough with his auditory, both
by reason of the usual custom of the nation, and principally
because what he said was true. For,
© Leusden’s edition, vol. 11, p. 717-
88 Hebrew and Talmudical — [Ch. vil. 51, 53-
Il. Let us consult another place in the same prophet,
Amos iv. 3: ‘And ye shall go out at the breaches one
against another, TTIW minsdvim and ye shall cast
them into the palace.” Where the Targum and Syriac,
“They shall carry them beyond the mountains of Armenia :”
and the Greek, eis τὸ ὄρος τὸ “Poppav, unto the mount Romman.
R. Solomon upon the place tells us that Jonathan paraphraseth
er a te vy ete abr beyond the mountains
of Horman, they are the mountains of darkness. ‘* Alexander?,
king of Macedon, UM AT TANS Kup ΜΘ -2a5 Swe
went to the king of Cazia behind the mountains of darkness.”
Let me add one passage more: “ Israel4 went into three
captivities ; ᾿Ξ) WIS ond MN one was within the
river Sanbation, S*DWOIN SW DID IM) and the other was
to Daphne of Antioch; the other, where the clouds did
descend upon them and covered them ἡ."
Ver. 51: Σκληροτράχηλοι" Stiffneckeds.| We have a like
phrase, and a story not much unlike, in Shemoth Rabbat:
When the people, in the absence of Moses, were urgent with
Aaron to make them gods that should go before them, “ Hur
resisted them, and said to them, NMI Wx‘ Ve short-
necked, do you not remember what wonderful things God
hath done for you? Immediately they rose up against him,
and slew him.”
Ver. 53: Els διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων" Ly the disposition of angels.}
I. I would not render this word ἀγγελῶν by the Hebrew word
ody angels, as the Syriac and Arabic interpreters have
done, but by omby messengers ; 80 ΖΝ my is ἄγγελος
ἐκκλησίας, the angel or messenger of the church. The Jews
have a trifling fiction, that those Israelites that were present
at mount Sinai, and heard the law pronounced thenee by God
himself, should have been like the angels, that they should
never have begot children, nor died, but for the time to
come should have been like to angels, had it not been for
that fatal and unfortunate crime of theirs in the matter of
the golden calf.
If εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων might admit of this passive con-
P Beresh. Rab. fol. 35. 4. t Fol. 156. 2.
a Hieros. Sanhed. fol. 29. 3. ἃ Vid. Avod. Zarah, fol. 5. -x.
τ Bemid. Rabba, fol. 268. 1. Hor. Heb. in John x, 35.
English folio edit., vol. i. p.674.
Ch. vii. 55.] Evercitations upon the Acts. 89
struction, “ that men might be disposed into the same pre-
dicament or state with the angels ;’ then I should think our
blessed martyr might in this passage remember them of their
own opinion, and the more smartly convince them of their
ἀνομία, transgression of the law, even from what they them-
selves granted ; as though he had said, ‘« Ye have received
a law which you yourselves confess would have put men into
an angelical state, and yet you have not observed it.”
Il. But if this clause will not bear that interpretation, it
is doubtful in what sense the word ἀγγέλων must be taken ;
and whether εἰς διαταγὰς, unto the dispositions, be the same
διὰ διαταγῶν, or διὰ διαταγῆς, by the dispositions or disposition.
That expression in Gal. iii. 1g agrees with this, διαταγεὶς δι᾿
ἀγγέλων, ordained by angels ; and in both these places it would
be something harsh to understand by angels those heavenly
spirits strictly and properly so taken: for what had they to
do in the disposition of the law? They were present indeed
at mount Sinai when the law was given, as many places of
the holy Scriptures do witness ; but then they were but pre-
sent there: for we do not find that any thing further was
done or performed by them. So that the thing itself makes
it necessary that both in this and in that place we should
understand by angels the messengers of God’s word, his pro-
phets and ministers. And the particle εἰς may retain its own
proper force and virtue, that the sense may come to thus
much ; viz. “ Ye have received the law wnto the disposition of
messengers, 1. 6. that it should be propounded and published
by* ministers, prophets, and others; and that according to
your own desire and wish, Exod. xx. 19, Deut. v. 25, and
Xvill. 15,16; and yet ye have not kept the law. Ye desired
prophets, and ye had them: and yet which of those prophets
have not you persecuted ?”
Ver. 56: Tov υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ Θεοῦ"
The Son of man standing on the right hand of God.| Christ
frequently calls himself the Son of man, but it is rarely that
we find him so called by others. But St. Stephen in this
expression recites that of Dan. vii. 13: “ I saw one like the
Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, and coming to
x Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 718.
90 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vil. 58.
the Ancient of days, and they brought him before him.” I
would hardly have expected from a Jew what R. Saadiah saith
upon this place, ‘like to the Son of man? “ {PTZ Mw WH
This is the Messiah our righteousness; but is it not written
of the Messiah, Poor and riding upon an ass? For he shall
come in humility. ‘ And they brought him before the Ancient
of days: this is that that is written, ‘The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.’ ”
They doctors in Sanhedrim2 talk much more out of the way;
“saw ὍΝ Oy ἼΣῚ Uf they are worthy (i. 6. the Israelites),
then he shall come with the clouds of heaven; but if they are
not worthy, then he will come poor, and riding upon an ass.”
The protomartyr declares he saw that of Daniel fulfilled now
in Jesus; to which that in Isa. vi. 1 is something parallel.
Ver. 58: Καὶ ἐκβαλόντες ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, ἐλιθοβόλουν: And
cast him out of the city, and stoned him.) 1. shor PB
a/b yin “ The place of stoning was without the Sanhe-
drim; according as it is said, ‘ Bring forth him that hath
_cursed without the camp, Lev. xxiv. 14.” “It is a tradition :
mum “x Voll a ee mig soon ma The place of stoning was
without three camps.” The Gloss tells us that the court was
the camp of the divine presence; the mountain of the temple,
the camp of the Levites; and Jerusalem, the camp of Israel.
Now in every Sanhedrim, in whatever city, the place of stoning
was without the city, as it was at Jerusalem.
We are told the reason by the Gemarists why the place of
stoning was without the Sanhedrim ; and again, without three
camps: viz. Dm “Ib a MM "TI pay we 17 the
Sanhedrim go forth, and sit without the three camps, they make
the place for stoning also distant from the Sanhedrim : partly
lest the Sanhedrim should seem to kill the man; partly, that
by the distance of the place there might be a little stop and
space of time before the criminal come to the place of execu-
tion, if, peradventure, any one might offer some testimony
that might make for him. For, in the expectation of some
such thing,
Π. wea pomom “72 nine Sy Tay ane “ There stood
Y English folio edit., vol. i. p. 675. a Hieros. Sanhedr. fol. 23. 1.
2 Fol. 98. 1. Bab. Sanhed. fol. 42. 2.
Ch. vii. 58. ] Exercitations upon the Acts. 91
one at the door of the Sanhedrim having a handkerchief in his
hand, FAS NAW AID WDD PWT DID and a horse at such
a distance as it was only within sight. If any one, therefore,
say, ‘I have something to offer in behalf of the condemned
person,’ he waves the handkerchief, and the horseman rides
and calls the people back. Nay, if the man himself say, ‘ I
have something to offer in my own defence,’ they bring him
back four or five times, one after another, if it be any thing
of moment that he hath to say’ I doubt they hardly dealt
so gently with the innocent Stephen.
III. If no testimony arise that makes any thing for him,
then they go on to stoning him: “ The crier proclaiming
before him, WV, the son of NV, comes forth to be stoned for
such or such a crime; N and WN are the witnesses against
him: if any one hath any thing to testify on his behalf, let
him come forth and give his evidence.”
IV. “ When they come within ten cubits of the place
where he must be stoned they exhort him to confess; for so
it is the custom for the malefactor to confess ; because every
one that confesseth hath his part in the world to come, as we
find in the instance of Achan,” &e.
V. “ When they come within four cubits of the place they
pluck off his clothes, and make him naked.”
VI. «The place of execution was twice a man’s height.
One of the witnesses throws him down upon his loins; if he
roll upon his breast, they turn him upon his loins again.
If he die so, well; if not, then the other witness takes up a
stone, and lays it upon his heart. If he die so, well; but if
not, then he is stoned by all Israel.”
VII. “All that are stoned are hanged also,” &c. These
things I thought fit to transcribe the more largely, that the
reader may compare this present action with this rule and
common usage of doing it.
1. It may first be questioned for what crime this person
was condemned to die. You will say, For blasphemy: “ For
we have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses
and against God.” But no one is condemned as a blasphemer
(572%), unless for abusing the sacred name with four letters,
&e. Hence is it, that although they oftentimes accused our
Saviour as a blasphemer, yet he was not condemned for this,
92 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. viti. 2.
but because bya mys IM on Ww he used witchcraft,
and deceived Israel, and seduced them into apostasy». And
these are reckoned amongst persons that are to be stoned,
HOIIT MVM Moar he that evilly persuades, and he that
draws into apostasy’, and a conjurer4,
2. It may further be questioned whether our blessed martyr
was condemned by any formal sentence of the Sanhedrim, or
hurried in a tumultuary manner by the people, and so mur-
dered : it seems to be the latter.
Παρὰ τοὺς πόδας νεανίου: At © a young man’s feet. Philem.
ver. g: Τοιοῦτος ὧν ws Παῦλος πρεσβύτης" Being such an one as
Paul the aged.| By which we may compute whether veavias
here denotes mere youth, and not rather strength and stoutness ;
2 Sam. vi. 1, ἘΝ ΟΞ ὌΠΞ 9 every chosen man of Israel :
where the Greek hath it πάντα νεανίαν ἐξ σραὴλ, every young
man of Isracl.
Ver. 60: ᾿Εκοιμήθη" Fell asleep.] 27 or IT he slept ;
than which nothing is more common in the Talmudists.
CEPA Vall:
Ver. 2: Συνεκόμισαν τὸν Στέφανον" Carried Stephen to his
burial.) “Theyf do not bury (any one condemned by the
Sanhedrim) in the sepulchres of their fathers. But there are
two places of burial belonging to the Sanhedrim; one, for
those that are beheaded and strangled; the other, for those
that are stoned and burnt.” The reason why such are not
to be buried with their fathers is this, OY yw pry PRO
j2°TW because they do not bury the guilty with the innocent ; which
they deduce from the story of an ordinary’ person cast into
Elisha’s grave, who continued not there, but rose again.
“ Theg stone wherewith any one is stoned, the wood on
which he is hanged, the sword by which he is beheaded, and
the halter wherewith he is strangled, is still buried in the
same place with him,” or at least very near him. That it
was otherwise with Stephen, the words now before us do
evince ; but whether this was from the indulgence of the
Sanhedrin towards the condemned person, or because he was
not condemned by the Sanhedrim, let others judge.
Ὁ Sanhedr. fol. 43. 1. © English folio edit., vol. ii. p.676.
© Leusden’s edit., vol. ii, p. 719. ! Sanhedr. fol. 46. 1.
4 Sanhedr. fol. 53, 1. & Ibid. fol. 45. 2.
Ch. viii. 5.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 93
Kal ἐποιήσαντο κοπετὸν μέγαν ἐπ᾿ aire: And made great la-
mentation over him.| The Rabbins go on: poann Vit NP
DITIN NTN They do not make a lamentation (over one con-
demned by the Sanhedrim), only bemoan him ; i.e. inwardly,
and in their heart only : aba ΜΌΝ mre PNW for this arief
ts not but in the heart. And it was a vulgar conceit amongst
the Jews, that by how much the more sordidly the criminal
was handled by the Sanhedrim, and how much the less be-
moaned after execution, by so much the more it tended to-
wards the remission of his sins. Whence the Gloss upon the
place, ‘They do not bewail him, that so that disgrace of his
might turn to his atonement.”
This generous and true Christian courage of these good
men burying St. Stephen is deservedly applauded by all;
and those that did thus bury him did thereby publicly
explode that ridiculous conceit of expiation by undergoing
the greatest disgrace here; for they knew well enough that
the remission of this martyr’s sins flowed from a more noble
source.
Ver. 5: Εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας" To the city of Samaria. }
Having done with the story of Stephen, who was the first
named amongst the seven deacons, the evangelist passeth on
to the affairs of Philip, who was the second. Whether he
betook himself to Sebaste, or to Sychem, or to some other
third city of Samaria, might be a reasonable question; be-
cause it is said, ver. 14, that “ the apostles heard that Samaria
had received the word of God ;” which seems more agree-
ably to be understood of some city in Samaria rather than
the whole Samaritan country. Now what city should that be,
which as the metropolis of that country is by way of emphasis
ealled Samaria? It is certain that Sebaste is that very city
which anciently was Samaria.
pwaw sort mwaw! “ Sebaste is the same which was Sa-
maria, where to this day the palace of Ahab is shown.” Ἔν
μέν ye τῇ Σαμαρείτιδι, &e. “ In Samaria (Herod) fortified a
city with a noble wall of twenty furlongs, and carrying thither
a colony of six thousand men, and distributing good land
amongst them, in the midst of the city erected a goodly
h English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 677.
i Benjam. [Tud.] in Itinerar. [p. 38. Ed. L’Empereur. |
04 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. viii. 9.
temple to Cesar; and leaving a grove about it of about three
half furlongs, τὸ ἄστυ Σεβαστὴν ἐκάλεσεν, he called the city
Sebaste*.”
Was this therefore the city of Samaria where Philip now
was, because that was once the city Samaria? If we observe
how the city of Sychem was the very heart and seat of the
Samaritan religion, and the mount Gerizim was, as it were,
the cathedral church of that sect ; perhaps to this one might
more fitly have respect when mention is made of ‘ the city of
Samaria,’ than any other place.
Ver. 9: Σίμων, προὐπῆρχεν ἐν τῇ πόλει μαγεύων" Simon, which
beforetime in the same city used sorcery.| Τῇ this was in
Sychem, you will say, what became then of the Sychemites’
faith, which Christ himself had already planted amongst
them!? It may be answered, (though in so very obscure a
thing I would not be positive,) That it was some years since
the time when Christ had conversed in that city, and when as
he had done nothing that was miraculous there, Simon by his
magics might obtain the easier reception amongst them.
But, however, grant it was Sebaste, or any other city of
Samaria, that was the scene of this story, yet who™ did this
Simon give out himself to be, when he said μέγαν εἶναί twa,
that he himself was some great one? and what sort of persons
did the Samaritans account him, when they said of him,
Οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ μεγάλη, This man is the great
power of God.
I. Did they take him for the Messiah? It is commonly
presumed that Simon was a Samaritan by birth; but should
Messiah spring out of the Samaritans? It is no impertinent
question, whether the Samaritans, when they looked for the
Messiah”, yet could expect he should be one of the Sama-
ritan stock, when they admitted of no article of faith that
had not its foundation in the books of Moses? Could they
not gather this from thence, that “the Messiah should come
of the tribe of Judah?” A Samaritan perhaps will deny
this, and elude that passage in Gen. xlix. 10, by some such
way as this; “It is true, ‘the sceptre shall not depart from
k Joseph. de Bell. Jud. 1. 1. ο. τό. m Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 720.
[ Hudson, p. 1007.] [i. 21. 2.] n John iv. 25.
' John iv.
"΄πὐσπππσυυσσ st tT a ll 0 «νυ τ ᾳ0ᾳ{ῃ| 0» ῇ«ᾳῳ Κᾳᾳιᾳῃᾳν ΄“ Κ«ᾳσν Ὅν οΜο
Ch. viii. 13.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 95
Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh
come ;’ but then this does not argue that Shiloh must derive |
his original from the tribe of Judah; only that some domi-
nion should continue in Judah till Shiloh should appear.”
Where, by the way, it is worth our observing, that the Sama-
ritan text, and interpreter in that place, instead of TW
reads 7 πρὸ without the jod, and instead of yon pad
Srom between his * feet, that text reads port yaa from be-
tween his ‘banners ;’ and the interpreter hath I ὙΠ 15) yaa
From between his ‘ranks, or companies.
That figment concerning Messiah Ben Joseph, or Messiah
Ben Ephraim, (for he goes by both those names,) whether it
was first invented by the Jews or by the Samaritans, is not
easily determined. The Jewish writers make very frequent
mention of him: but the thing itself makes so much for the
Samaritans, that one might believe it was first hatched
amongst themselves ; only that the story tells us that Mes-
siah was at length slain; which the Samaritans would hardly
ever have invented concerning him. And the Jews perhaps
might be the authors of it, that so they might the better
evade those passages that speak of the death of the true
Messiah.
II. However, it was impiety enough in Simon, if he gave
out himself for a prophet, when he knew so well what himself
was; and if you expound his “ giving cut himself to be some
great one,” no higher than this, yet does it argue arrogance
enough in the knave. I would not depress the sense of those
words concerning John Baptist, Luke i. 15, ἔσται μέγας ἐνώ-
mov τοῦ Κυρίου, he shall be great in the sight of the Lord; but
if we take it in the highest degree, “ he shall be a prophet
before the Lord Christ,” it carries both an excellent truth
along with it, and also a most plain agreeableness with the
office of John. And when Stephen expresseth Moses to have
been a prophet in these terms, Ἦν δυνατὸς ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἐν
ἔργοις, He was mighty in words and deeds, perhaps it bears the
same sense with what the Samaritans said and conceited con-
cerning this Simon, that he was ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ μεγάλη,
the great power of God.
Ver. 13°: Ὁ δὲ Σίμων καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπίστευσε" Then Simon him-
© English folio edition, vol. il. p. 678.
96 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vill. 14.
self believed also.| That is, he believed that ‘Jesus of Naza-
reth was the true Messiah,’ and so was made capable of bap-
tism, as in ver. 37; and was indeed baptized in the name of
Jesus, ver.16. And now, O Simon, what thinkest thou of
thyself, if hitherto thou hadst exhibited thyself as the Mes-
siah? Darest thou after this pretend to be the Son of God?
That which is commonly told of him, and which EpiphaniusP
reports, without alleging any others, Tov Πατέρα ἔλεγεν ἑαυτὸν
τοῖς Σαμαρείταις, ᾿Ιουδαίοις δὲ ἔλεγεν ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὸν Υἱόν" To
the Samaritans he gave out himself to be the Father ; to the Jews,
to be the Son ; betrays not only the blasphemy, but the mad-
ness of the man; that amongst the Jews he should pretend
himself to be ‘ the Son of God,’ when they would acknowledge
no Son of God at all.
Ver. 14: ᾿Απέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην, &e.
They sent unto them Peter and John.| piphanius here very
appositely tells us, Philip, being but a deacon, had not the
power of imposition of hands, so as by that to confer the gift of
the Holy Ghost. It was the apostles’ peculiar province and
prerogative, by laying on of their hands, to communicate the
Holy Ghost, that is, in his extraordinary gifts of tongues and
prophecy; for as to the spirit of sanctification, they never
dispensed that.
Peter and John, besides the eminent station they held
amongst the apostles, were also to be the apostles of the
circumcision in foreign countries. James the brother of
John was now alive, who with those two made up that noble
triumvirate that had a more intimate familiarity with Christ.
And one would believe he ought also to have been sent along
with them, but that they were sufficient; and that this was
only as a prologue to their future charge and office of dealing
with the circumcision in foreign countries.
They lay their hands upon some whom the Holy Ghost
had pointed out to be ordained ministers; and by so doing
they did communicate the gifts of tongues and prophecy so
very visibly and conspicuously, that it is said, that “ Simon
saw how through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the
Holy Ghost was given.” Amongst the Jews, persons were
ordained elders by three men; but here this duumvirate was
» { Her. xxi. ] q Ibid.
Ch. viii. 19, 24.] EHvercitations upon the Acts. 97
abundantly more valuable, when they could not only promote
to the ministry, but further confer upon those that were so
promoted a fitness and ability for the performance of their
office.
Ver. 19: Δότε κἀμοὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην, &e. Give me also
this power, 4.5.1] How infinitely mistaken is this wretch, if he
think that the gifts of the Holy Ghost could be bought and
procured by silver or gold! and how much more mistaken
still, if he think that the power of conferring these gifts to
others could be thus attained! The apostles had a power of
imparting these gifts, but even they had not a power of
enabling another to impart them. Paul by laying hands on
Timothy could endow him with the gifts of tongues™ and
prophecy, but he could not so endow him that he should be
capable of conveying those gifts to another. This was purely
apostolical to dispense these gifts; and when they died, this
power and privilege died with them.
It is easy apprehending what this wily wretch had in his
thought and design, viz. an affectation both of lucre and
vainglory ; otherwise it might have been abundantly enough
for him to have requested, ‘ Give me also the gift of tongues
and prophecy, as ye have given to these.’
Ver. 248: Δεήθητε ὑμεῖς ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, &e. Pray ye to the Lord
for me, Sc.) If he begged this in earnest and from his
heart, it is a wonder he should afterward break out into so
much blasphemy and wickedness that chureh history reports
concerning him, if that say true. ‘ Andt when he did still
more and more disbelieve God, and set himself more greedily
in an opposition against the apostles,” ὅς. Σίμωνα μέγαν
μεγάλων ἀντίπαλον τῶν θεσπεσίων ἀποστόλων, ὅσο. Simon, the
great adversary of the great and holy apostles, ὅο.α For him
to beseech the apostles earnestly to pray for him, and yet
from thenceforth to oppose them to the utmost of his power,
—this certainly is the gall of bitterness and the bond of
iniquity.
We have (if we believe the story) St. Peter and this Simon
meeting with one another again at Rome; where the apostle
by his prayers tumbles this magician headlong to the ground,
¥ Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 721. t ren. lib. 3. cap. 20.
5. English folio edit., vol. ii. p.679. u Easeb. 110. 11. cap. 14.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. Η
98 Hebrew and Talmudical [ΟἿ vii. 26, 27.
while he was flying in the air, and so Simon Magus breathes
his last. If it had been taken notice of, that (if Philostratus
may be believed) it is probable St. Peter and Apollonius
Tyanzeus were at one and the same time together in Babylon,
doubtless there would have been some such tale as this framed
about St. Peter’s triumphing over him also.
That in Justin Martyr* concerning a statue erected at
Rome to Simon Magus, with this inscription, Simoni sancto
Deo, ‘To Simon the holy God, is shewn by learned men to
have been so called by mistake, when it was rather a statue
erected Semoni Sanco Deo. I fear there is some such mistake
concerning St. Peter’s chair erected in Rome as there was
concerning the statue of Simon erected at Romey.
Ver. 26: Εἰς Γάζαν, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος: To Gaza, which is
desert.| Who is it speaks this clause, which is desert, the
angel or the historian? Strabo indeed tells usz that “ Gaza
anciently was a noble city, destroyed by Alexander, καὶ
μένουσα ἔρημος, and continues desert: but why is this added
in this place, and by whom is it so? I would suppose it is
added by the angel, and that for this reason ; because there
was another Gaza not very far from that place, where Philip
now was, viz. in the tribe of Ephraim, 1 Chron. vil. 28:
MID Hy Ty ΓΤ ΠῚ DSW Suchene with the towns thereof,
to Gaza with the towns ther Ὁ: this was the dwelling of the
children of Ephraim. Here is Gaza of Ephraim, but Philip
must go to Gaza of the Philistines.
Ver. 27: Δυνάστης Κανδάκης τῆς βασιλίσσης Αἰθιόπων: Of
great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians.| In a
French treatise lately published, that bears the title of
‘ Histoire de la Haute Ethiopie,’ p. 15, all the Ethiopian
kings are named and reckoned up, and Candace not men-
tioned. But at the end there is this animadversion upon it:
‘Dans cette chronologie il n’est point parlé ni de la reine
Jandace, ni de limperatrice Helene,” &e. Jn this chronology
there is no mention of the queen Candace, nor of the empress
Helen: the Abyssins, no more than the Jews, use not to name
the women in their genealogies ; a thing very common with all
the eastern nations.”
x [Apol. c. 56.] y [See art. Simon in Dict. of Gk. and Rom. Biogr. |
z (Lib. xvi. c. 2.]
Ch. viii. 32.] Ezercitations upon the Acts. 99
However, that there was a certain Candace queen of the
Kthiopians, nay, that there were several queens of that name,
is so very plain both from Pliny and Strabo, that it would
be an impertinent thing to seek for this Candace of ours any
where else. “ The head of the kingdom (saith Strabo) was
Meroe, a city of the same name with the island itself.’ Now
the country Meroe was made an island by the river Nile west-
ward, and the river Astabora eastward.
If our eunuch here came indeed from Meroe, then may
we call to mind that passage in Zeph. iii. 10, “ From beyond
the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants,”’ &c. But from what
part soever of Candace’s empire he might come, and what
way soever he went, that might be true of him, and a very
long journey he must needs take before he could arrive at
Jerusalem. But the Ethiopic version cuts the journey much
shorter when it makes him travelling to the city Gaza; so
rendering that passage, ds ἣν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης αὐτῆς, not
who had the charge of all her “ treasure, but who was over all
‘ Gaza.’
I> am apt to imagine this devotionist might come to Je-
rusalem upon the same errand that had brought the Jews
from all countries, Acts ii; viz. led hither by the prophecy
of Daniel, which had foretold the appearance of the Messias
about. this time. And one would wonder that whilst he was
at Jerusalem he should have heard nothing concerning Jesus.
Or perhaps what he heard of him was the occasion of his
studying at this time that passage in Isaiah’s prophecy.
Where now were the apostles and the rest of that holy col-
lege and company, that so great a person, and one of such
devotion, should be let go untaught and unsatisfied concerning
the Lord Jesus? Is it possible that he could be ignorant
of the talk of his death and resurrection, abiding in the city,
although as yet he might not believe it? but his instruction
and conversion is reserved to a more peculiar miracle, that
should render it the more famous and better known.
Ver. 32: ‘Qs πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη: He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter.] The text in Isaiah is indeed expressed
here according to the Greek version ; but whether the eunuch
ἃ Ptol. tab. 4. Africa. Ὁ English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 680.
H 2
100 Hebrew and Talinudical (Ch. viii. 32.
used that version or no, is no unjust question. As? also,
whether he were a Jew or a proselyte ; whether a proselyte
made, or a mere Gentile ; whether a eunuch in the strict or
in the larger sense: which things are not to be inquired into,
because we can nowhere be resolved about them. The per-
verseness of the Jews is more obvious, who, to elude these
express and plain things about the sufferings of the Messiah,
do divert the whole sense of this chapter to another thing.
It goes current amongst them that the afflicted people of
Israel are the subject of this prophecy; although there are
those who would apply part of it to Jeremiah; others, part of
it to ‘R. Judah the Holy;’ nay, some there are that will
allow some part of it to the Messias himself, in the mean
time providing that they admit not of his death. It would
be very tedious to set down particularly their triflings and
illusions in this matter: I rather inquire who it is that the
Greek interpreters apply this passage to? Whether they
plainly and sincerely understood them of the sufferings and
death of the Messiah? Let those answer for them who would
have them inspired by the Holy Ghost. If they were thus
inspired, they could not but attain the true sense and scope
of the Scripture, as well as the grammatical signification of
the words, and could not but discern here that the prophet
treats of an afflicted, suffering, dying, buried Messias, &e.
And if so, how strange a thing is it that the whole nation
should be carried away with so cursed, perverse, and obstinate
a denial of the Messiah’s death! What! for seventy-two doc-
tors and guides of the people, and those divinely inspired too,
so plainly to foresee the sufferings and death of the Messiah
foretold in this chapter, and yet not to take care to disperse
this doctrine amongst the people, nor deliver and hand it
down to posterity ? But if they did do it, how came so horrid
an averseness to this doctrine to seize the whole nation? If
they did not, what execrable pastors of the people were they,
to conceal so noble and so necessary an article of their faith,
and not impart it !
In like manner do the Jews commonly apply that famed
prophecy of Christ, Isa. ix. 6, to king Hezekiah. I doubt
b Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 722.
Ch. viii. 33.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 101
also the Greek interpreters lean that way; that clause, “Ago
ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ, I will restore health, or sowndness, to him, gives a
suspicion of it.
Ver. 33: "Ev τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ 7 κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη In
his humiliation his judgment was taken away.] The Hebrew
text is, mp5 mew wy He was taken from prison and
Srom judgment : which the Seventy read thus, WWD Wyo
np. If you render the word Wy in the same sense with
mn “ap WY) 1 Sam. xxi. 8, Doeg (for devotion, saith
Kimchi) was detained before the Lord ; then is shown so much
the greater wrong done to Christ. He was snatched from
the place of his devotion, and from his work; and he was
snatched from the place of judgment, that he could neither
be safe in that, nor have just judgment in the other. Any
one knows what Ny signifies, namely, being detained upon a
religious account: and what affinity the word wy to shut up,
may have with it, every one may also see.
Τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; Who shall declare his
generation 9] That is, ‘“‘ Who shall declare the wickedness of
that age or generation wherein he lived, and by whom he
suffered such things!” ‘This and such like passages are very
usual amongst thee Jews. ‘“In4 the generation in which the
Son of David shall come, the synagogue shall be a common
stews; Galilee shall be destroyed and Gablan shall be laid
waste; the wisdom of the Scribes shall putrefy; good and
merciful men shall fail; yea, and truth itself shall fail; and
the faces of that generation shall be as the faces of dogs.
R. Levi saith, The Son of David shall not come but in a gene-
ration wherein men’s faces shail be impudent, and which will
deserve to be cut off. R. Jannai saith, When thou seest the
generation after the slandering and blaspheming generation,
then expect the feet of King Messias,” that is, his coming.
While I read the Chaldee paraphrast in Isa. lili, methinks I
see a forehead not unlike the faces before mentioned: for he
wrests the prophet’s words with that impudence and perverse-
ness from their own proper sense, that it is a wonder if his
own conscience, while he was writing it, did not check and
admonish him.
© English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 681. ἃ Midr. Schir. fol. 17. 3.
102 Hebrew and Talmudical [(Ch. viii. 40, &e.
Ver. 40: Φίλιππος δὲ εὑρέθη εἰς "Αζωτον: But Philip was
found at Azotus.} Uf this was done at Gaza or near it, it was
from thence to Azotus about two hundred and seventy fur-
longs¢ ; or thirty-four miles, or thereabout. And Azotus was,
as it seems, two miles from Jamnia, according to the compu-
tation of Antoninus’s Itinerarium. From Gaza to Askalon
sixteen miles; from Askalon to Jamnia twenty. We have
the mention of one ΜΘ ΤΌ wy Rabba Philippi, as it should
seem, in the Jerusalem Talmud?.
CHIP ΤᾺ
Ver. 2: Ἠιτήσατο παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὰς εἰς Δαμασκόν. He
desired of him [the high priest] ἐοίίογ5 to Damascus.] These
letters were written from the whole Sanhedrim§, the head of
which was Gamaliel, Paul’s master; yet they are attributed
to the high priest, he being of a more worthy degree and
order than the president of the council. That in Acts xxii. 4
hath a peculiar emphasis, τὸν ἀρχιερέα τοῦ Θεοῦ, God’s high
priest ; and hints to us the opinion that nation had of the
high priest, namely, that he was ‘ God’s officer :’ whereas the
president of the council was only an officer of the people, and
chosen by men. The charge of the high priest was to take
eare about holy things: the charge of the president was to
take care about the traditions: for he was the 711, the
keeper and repository of traditions.
But» the words we are upon do occasion a more knotty
and difficult question, viz. whether the decrees of the San-
hedrim were of authority amongst the Jews in countries
abroad? As to Damascus, there is the less scruple; because
Syria in very many things was looked upon to be of the same
rank and condition with the land of Israel. But what shall
we think of more remote countries? For instance, Egypt or ᾿
Babylon, where the greatest number of Jews above all other
countries in the world did reside.
1. There was no Sanhedrim of seventy men, either in
Egypt or Babylon, or indeed anywhere else but that at Jeru-
salem. There were very famous academies in Babylon, viz.
that of Nehardea, that of Sorah, and that of Pombeditha;
© Diod. Sicul. lib. xix. [84.] & Vid. Acts xxii. 5.
f Megill. fol. 70. 2. h Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 723.
Chi ix..5,7-] Exercitations upon the Acts. 103
but a Sanhedrim nowhere. There was a very famous cathe-
dral church at Alexandria, wherein were seventy pompous
stalls; but it was but a church, not a Sanhedrimi.
II. In what veneration the Jerusalem Sanhedrim was held
everywhere amongst all sorts of Jews may be collected from
this: that the rule and determination concerning intercalating
the year, concerning the beginning of the year, and the ap-
pointed time of the feasts, &c. came from it; as also that was
esteemed the keeper and repository of the oral law.
III. The judgment of life and death, in the matter of
heresy and heterodoxy, belonged only to the Jerusalem San-
hedrim: and it is some such thing that is now before us.
The Christians were to be sent from the synagogues bound
to Jerusalem, that if they would not deny their faith they
might be condemned to die. The synagogues by their three
menk might scourge them, but they could not pass sentence
of death: and these goodly men conceived there was no
other way to extirpate Christianity but by the death of
Christians.
IV. Whether therefore these were mandatory letters, or
only exhortatory, which St. Paul desired, the fathers of the
Sanhedrim knew the synagogues were heated with so great
an indignation against Christianity, that they would most rea-
dily undertake what was desired. Where by the way we may
make this observation, That the power of life and death was
not yet taken out of the hands of the Sanhedrim. I have
elsewhere given you a copy of a letter from the Sanhedrim to
those of Babylon, and also to those of Alexandria!.
Ver. 5: Σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν: It is hard for thee
to kick against the pricks.| In Syriac, syn qb WW NWP
span. It is well known that yr signifies to kick, from
Deut. xxxii. 15, and 1 Sam. ii. 29; nor is it less known what
this word kicking in these places means. “ R. Bibai sat and
taught—R. Isaac Ben Cahna ΓΔ ὩΣ hicked against him™.”
Ver.7: ᾿Ακούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς, &e. Hearing a voice, &c.]
But it is said, chap. xxii.g, “They heard not the voice of
him that spake unto me.” They heard bp the vorce or
sound ; but they did not hear \27 the words. So we find the
i Hieros. Succah, fol. 55.1. 1 Vid. Hor. Heb. ad Matt. ii. 14.
k English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 682. m Hieros. Schab. fol. 11.1.
104 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. ix. 12.
Jewish writers distinguishing: “There I will speak with
thee. The word shall be with thee, but not with them all.
9277 FS Poow ΝΡ sy by 55 Perhaps they did not hear
the words, Pars ΓΝ Pow ὙΠ bass but they heard the
vowce”.”?
Μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες: But seeing no man.} But did Paul
himself see him? See ver. 17: “Jesus that appeared to thee
in the way:” and ver. 27, “He saw the Lord in the way.”
1 Cor. ix.:; “ Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord 2”
And chap. xv. 8, ‘“ He was seen of me also,” &c.; but did he
see his person, or his glory only? I would say he saw both;
and so had obtained a more illustrious vision of him than any
of the rest, having seen him since he was glorified, which
they did not. But whether he saw with his bodily eyes, or
as Isaiah, chap. vi. 1, by vision only, let those dispute it that
think fit. “
Concerning Damascus, the scene of this history, we may >
eall to mind that of Zech. ix.1; “ The burden of the word
of the Lord in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus the rest
thereof,” &c.: where the Targum; “ Damascus shall be con-
verted, so that it shall be of the land of the house of his
majesty.” Kimchi hath it, “Damascus shall be his rest :”
that is, ‘‘ the habitation of his glory and of his prophet,” &e.;
which things whether they have any relation to this place,
let the reader judge. Only I must not let it pass unobserved,
that Paul, the converter of the Gentiles, was called to his
apostleship, and saw Christ in a country, and almost in a
city of the Gentiles.
St. Paul himself tells us, that this voice which came from
heaven spake to him ᾿Εβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, in the Hebrew tongue,
chap. xxvi. 14: which our historian doth not mention ; nor
indeed those passages, ver. 16, 17, 18, which St. Paul there
relates.
Ver. 12: ᾿Επιθέντα αὐτῷ χεῖρα, ὅπως ἀναβλέψῃ:; Putting his
hand on him, that he might receive his sight.|] Ananias himself
adds, ver. 17, “that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be
filled with the Holy Ghost.” Could Ananias therefore confer
the Holy Ghost? This seemed the peculiar prerogative of the
apostles; could therefore a private disciple do this to an
1 Bemidb. Rab. fol. 163. 1.
Ch. xii. 2.] ELxercitations upon the Acts. 105
apostle? By the imposition of his hands could he impart the
gift of tongues and prophecy? Will not this degrade our
apostle even below the ordinary ministers who received these
gifts by the imposition of the apostle’s hands? and shall he
that is an apostle take his commission from the hands of one
that is not so himself? It was not ordinary for an apostle to
be baptized by one that was not an apostle ; and it would be
strange if such a one should add over and above greater
things to an apostle.
It° may be no needless question, who it was that baptized
the rest of the apostles, when “ Jesus himself baptized not,”
John iv. 2? who, therefore, baptized those that did baptize ?
Let the Romanists say who baptized Peter: I would say John
the Baptist did. But do you think Peter was rebaptized? if
so, by whom, when Jesus himself did not baptize ?
OE AG OCU.
Ver. 2: ᾿Ανεῖλε δὲ ᾿Ιάκωβον μαχαίρᾳ He killed James with
the sword.] This kind of death is called IN filling. “ Four
kinds of death are delivered into the hands of the Sanhedrim :
mop stoning; MID NW burning; AW Killing (with the sword);
jan strangling?.” “The precept PINT concerning those that
are to be killed is this, JOA WRT NN PrN VT They be-
headed him with the sword, as the (Roman) kingdom does.
R. Judah saith, ‘ This is a vile disgrace to him.’ But they lay
his head upon a block, and chop it off with an axe. Others
reply, ‘ There can be no death more disgraceful than that4.”
You will say, Herod (Agrippa) imitated the Roman customs,
as having no small relation to Rome. But beheading by the
sword was a death used amongst the Jews themselves, and
they particularly fell under that sentence that drew away the
people to the worship of other gods. ‘If they be but a few
that seduce the people to strange worship, they are stoned,
and their goods are not confiscated ; but if their numbers
be great, they die by the sword,-and their goods are con-
fiscated™.”
St. James, indeed, was but a single person; but Herod
° English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 683. 4 Ibid. fol. 52. 2.
Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 724. r [bid. fol. 111. 2.
P Sanhedr. fol. 49. 2.
106 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xii. 7,15.
knew that there was Peter also, and several others, who,
according to his judgment, PWN drew away the people to
an irreligious worship; and deals with James as he intended
to do with the rest. So he falls, and his goods are confis-
eated ; and so that begins to be accomplished which our
Saviour had formerly told the sons of Zebedee, “ Ye shall
drink of my cup,” &e. “ The Rabbins say, killing [by the
sword ] ᾿ a heavier punishment than stranglings.”
Ver.7: At ἁλύσεις ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν" His chains from his hands.]
I am ratabaleeg if the Jerusalem Talmudists do not express
ἁλύσεις τῶν χειρῶν by SPD Wd, “ chiromanice, hand-
manacles. “ It is written, ‘The Lord spake to Manasseh,
and to his people, but they hearkened not; wherefore the
Lord brought upon them the captains of that host of the
king of Assyria, which took Manasseh OW. What sig-
nifies om? that is, NYPD WWI in manaclest?” The
Targum on 2 Chron. xxiii thus renders it MW2 MN FINN
m3 TPI1; where I am apt to suspect the word 75
is ill writ instead of 39D; but I stand corrected very wil-
lingly if I guess amiss.
In those words of our Saviour, “ Bind the unprofitable
servant hand and foot,” &e. it is plain to see how he alluded
to manacles and fetters.
Ver.15: Ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, &e. It is his angel.] That
, an angel in his shape: for it was familiarly received amongst
ἜΝ that the angels did sometimes put on the shape of this
or of that person. “ It is written, ‘He hath delivered me
from.the sword of Pharaoh. Bar Kaphra saith, 77 ἽΝ
TPIT ΤΌ NWA, An angel peut in the shape of
Moses, and made him flee. SWI ΤΟ qb 2 PDO WN
And they that came to lay hold on Moses thought the angel to
be Moses.’ The Gloss is, “ The angel quickened Moses in
his flight; so that those that sought for Moses were very
little solicitous about him, because they thought the angel
was Moses.” ‘The holy blessed God saith, ‘I have said to
Mirth, What doth it? What doth that crown in thine hand ?
Descend from my throne.’ In the same hour an angel de-
5 Hieros. Sanhedr. fol. 29. 4 t Ibid. fol. 28. 3.
ἃ Debarim Rabba, fol. 290. 4.
Ch. xii. 20, 223. Ewercitations upon the Acts. 107
scended mrabw bw amit in the shape of Solomon, and sat
upon his throne*.”
Tt is well known that the Jewish writers do take Elias for
“ the angel of the covenant,” Mal. ii. 1; and how often have
we Elias appearing in the shape of this or of that man!
“ Kliasy came WIV") WS ἽΠΦ ὙΠ ΙΝ and seemed unto them
as one of themselves?” “ΤΥΥΤῚ Ἢ ΓΎΣΤΣ mad ims Say
1 On a certain day Elias came to R. Judah the Holy i
the shape of R. Chaiah Rubbah, &e.: having touched his teeth
he took away their pain. The next day R. Chaiah Rubbah
came to him and said, ‘ How doth Rabbi, how do his teeth ?’
To whom he replied, ‘ From the time that thou touchedst
my teeth with thy fingers they were healed*.”
Ver. 20: Διὰ τὸ τρέφεσθαι αὐτῶν τὴν χώραν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλι-
kis’ Because their country was nourished by the king’s country. |
Here we may call to mind that of Ezek. xxvii. 17: “ Judah
and the land of Israel [O Tyre] were thy merchants; they
traded in thy market wheat of Minnith and Pannag, and
honey, and oil, and balm.” So the Latin, the Interlinear,
our English, and the Italian versions. But others make
Minnith and Pannag not places but merchandise ware ;
namely, the Syriac, Arabic, Greek, and the Chaldee espe-
cially, who hath rendered the words so that R. Solomon and
R. Kimchi confess they know not well what he means. As
for Minnith, we have it mentioned in Judges xi. 33: for
which? the Syriac hath Masir, for a reason not known; and
the Greek Arnon, for no reason at all. As for Pannag, we
meet with it nowhere else. Whatever it be, the words of
the prophet hint to us the same thing that the evangelist
doth here; which is strengthened also from that in 1 Kings
v.11: “And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures
of wheat for food to his household, and twenty measures of
pure oil; thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year.”
Ver. 23: Γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος ἐξέψυξεν' And he was eaten
of worms, and gave up the ghost.] Josephus* speaks more sparingly
in this matter, ΓΑθρουν δὲ αὐτῷ τῆς κοιλίας προσέφυσεν ἄλγημα:
The pains of his belly came thick upon him ; speaking only of
x Midr. Coheleth, fol. 87. 4. 8 Hieros. Kilaim, fol. 32. 2.
Υ English folio edit., vol. i. p.684. Ὁ Leusden’s edit., vol. 11, p. 725.
z Sanhedr. fol. 109. 1. ¢ [ Antigq. xix. 8. 2.]
108 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiii. 1.
the torments of the belly, and suppressing the cause: and
that (as it should seem) not only to conceal the king’s re-
proach, but to add something of honour to him. For lay that
passage in the Talmud to this, Sona on oes by ED
Ov Many just persons have died of the pain in the bowels 4.
On the contrary, to be devoured by worms was reckoned an
accursed thing, and what befell none but men of greatest im-
piety. Those* that went to spy out the land of promise,
and raised an evil report upon it, “ they had their tongues
hanging out, and falling upon their navels ; myn ὙΠ
onwon MSVyY and worms issued out of their tonques and
crept into their navels, and issued out of their navels again,
and crept into their tongues.” “A certain priest” (a Bai-
thusean as it should seem) “ made incense without, and
brought it within. There are who say, ITD WIT N39
Oyrwn that his nose hung down, issuing out with worms ; and
that something like a calf’s hoof grew in his forehead.” :
CIDA PR: ΧΠΠ.
Ver. 1: Ἦσαν δέ τινες ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκ-
κλησίαν" There were some in the church that was at Antioch.]
Compare that passage, chap. xi. 27, with this place; and
neither the word τίνες, some, will seem redundant, nor the
phrase κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν so harsh. ‘There came some
prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch,” when yet there were
in the church of Antioch some prophets of their own already.
And it seems to hint that the separation of Paul and Bar-
nabas to the ministry was done by the stated ministers of
that church, and not by others that came thither.
Προφῆται καὶ διδάσκαλοι: Prophets and teachers&.| These
offices, indeed, are distinguished 1 Cor. xii. 28 and Eph.
iv. 11: but here they seem as if they were not so to be. For
the church of Antioch was not yet arrived at that maturity
that it should produce teachers that were not endowed with
the Holy Ghost and the gift of prophecy, and the phrase
κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν seems to intimate some such thing ;
viz. that according to the state of the church then being in that
place, there were, nay it was necessary there should be, pro-
4 Schabb. fol. 118. 2. f Hieros. Joma, fol. 39. 1.
€ Sotah, fol. 35. 1. & English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 685.
Ch. xiii. 1.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 109
phetic teachers, because there was not any who by the study
of the Scriptures was become fit for that office. But why
then is it not rather said διδάσκαλοι προφητικοὶ, prophetic
teachers, than προφῆται καὶ διδάσκαλοι, prophets and teachers ϑ
Namely, because there were prophets who were not ordinary
teachers, but acted in their prophetic office occasionally only :
and they were such as rather foretold things to come than
ordinarily preached, or taught ecatechistically. But these
were both prophets and constant preachers too.
Mavanv τε ‘Hpadov τοῦ retpdpyou σύντροφος: And Manaen,
which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch.| So Me-
nahem is writ in the Alexandrian copy, at 2 Kings xv. [14.]
Μαναὴν, Manaen: but the Roman hath Μαναὴμ, Manaem.
This our Manaen’s education with Herod the tetrarch brings
to mind what is related in Juchasin»: “ Hillel and Shammai
received their traditions from them” (that is, from Shamaiah
and Abtalion). ‘ But first were Hillel and Menahem. Me-
nahem went off into the king’s family and service, ὩΣ OY
ἘΠῚ owisd cows with fourscore men clothed in gold. Me-
nahem was grave and wise, like a prophet, and uttered many
prophecies. He foretold Herod, when he was yet very young,
that he should come to reign: and when he did reign, he sent
for him, who foretold him also that he should reign above
thirty years. And he did reign seven-and-thirty.”. Josephus
(who is quoted also by this our author) speaks much the same
as to part of the story: ‘There was amongst the Essenes one
named Menaem; who, besides that he was famous for the
holiness of his life, had obtained of God a foreknowledge of
future things. He called Herod, while he was yet a child,
king of the Jewsi,” &c.
I do not think this our Manaen was the same person; nor
do I say that he was his son; for had the Essenes children ?
But whereas this person was so accepted in the court of
Herod the Great, and our Manaen brought up with Herod
his son, I cannot but suspect there might be something of
kindred betwixt them. But that matter is not ¢anti: it is
only worthy our considering, whether this Manaen might not
lay the foundations of his Christianity while he was in Herod
the tetrarch’s court, where John the Baptist preached, and
bh Fol. 19. 1. i Antiq. lib. xv. cap. 13. [Hudson, p. 699.| [xv. το. 5.]
110 Hebrew and Talmudical { Ch. xiii. 2.
that with some kind of approbation and applause even from
Herod himself, Mark vi. 20.
As to the remaining part of the story, the Talmudists* add
this passage; “ "NOW DIDN OMIM NY Menahem went out,
and Shammai entered. But whither went Menahem? Abai
saith, ΤΌ miasan> sw He lashed out into all abundance
of wickedness. Aba saith, ‘He went into the service! of the
king, and with him went fourscore pair of disciples, all clad in
silk’” I dare not say this Menahem was the same with our
Manaen, unless he were a hundred years of age, or thereabout ;
and yet, when I observe the familiarity that was between that
Menahem and Herod the father, and how ours was brought
up with Herod the son (which certainly was not put in by our
historian for no reason), it cannot but give me some appre-
hension that either he might be the person himself, or rather
his son (if at least that Essenes had children); or, in a word,
some very near relation. Be it one or other, it is worthy in-
quiry, whether this our Manaen might not lay the foundation
of his evangelical religion in the court of Herod the tetrarch,
when John Baptist preached there.
Ver. 2: Λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ νηστευόντων᾽
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted.| 1. The more re-
ligious amongst the Jews fasted and met in their synagogues
to the public prayers and service on the second and fifth days
of the week: so that on those days it might be properly said
of them, ἐλειτούργουν καὶ ἐνήστευον, that they ministered and
fasted. On their sabbath, indeed, ἐλειτούργουν, they ministered,
but they did not ἐνήστευον, fast; but on these days in the
week, the second and the fifth, they did both.
II. Perhaps it might be somewhat bold to say, that the
chureh at Antioch did according to the Jewish custom ob-
serve the weekly fasts; and yet more bold to say that church
chose those days for fasting which the Jews had done, viz. the
second and fifth days of the week: but it would be most au-
dacious to conjecture that they observed the Jewish sabbath™
in some measure with the Lord’s day, and that with fasting,
when as the Jews would by no means endure a fast upon that
day. But whatever the day of this fasting was, or what occa-
k Chagigah, fol. 16. 2. '! Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 726.
m English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 686.
Ch. xiil. 3.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 111
sion soever there was of it, from that ordinary custom of the
Jews, it is easy to judge of that phrase, λειτουργούντων, minis-
tering, viz. that a public fast was celebrated with the public
assembly of the church and administration of holy things :
which whether it was so done, ver. 3, where it is said, τότε
νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι, then they fasted and prayed,
may be some question: that is, whether at that time there
was a public fast of the whole church, or a more private one
amongst the elders only.
Ver. 3: ᾿Επιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς, &e. Laid their hands
on them, 8.1 Twowa ΓΙᾺ ΓΙ opr nad The
ordaining of the elders and beheading the heifer is by the three».
In this thing, therefore, this present action agreeth with the
common usage of the synagogue, that three persons, Simeon,
Lucius, and Manaen, lay their hands on two that were to be
sent out, viz. Paul and Barnabas. But in that they lay on
their hands, they do also recede from the usual custom.
“¢ After what manner is the ordaining of elders for ever? Not
that they should fay their hands upon the head of an elder,
but only should call him ‘ Rabbi,’ and say to him, ‘ Behold,
thou art ordained, and thou hast power of judging, &e. An-
ciently, every one that had been promoted to be an elder
promoted his disciples also: but this honour the wise men in-
dulged to old Hillel; namely, decreeing that no person should
be ordained to an elder but with the licence of the president.
But neither is the president to ordain any person unless the
vice-president assist him; nor the vice-president, unless the
president assist him. But as to what belongs to the other
societies, it is lawful for one man to ordain with the allowance
of the president: but let him have two more with him; for it
is not an ordination unless by three; nor do they ordain elders
out of the land°.”
It might not be unworthy our inquiry, if there were place
for it here, both why they have abolished the ceremony of
imposition of hands, as also why they should restrain the
ordaining of elders to the land of Israel only. We see the
church at Antioch doth otherwise; and by the same rule the
Christian church. But perhaps some will ask, upon what
n Sanhedr. cap. 1. hal. 3. © Maimon. Sanhedr. cap. 4.
112 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiii. 4.
reason? when laying on of hands in the ordination of elders
was hardly used at all, either under the first temple, or before
or under the second temple. It was not under the second
temple, if we may believe the Rabbin newly quoted; or, at
least, if it was used, it was abolished at last. And before the
second temple where is there any sign or footstep of such a
thing?
Ver. 4: Κατῆλθον els τὴν Σελεύκειαν" Departed unto Seleu-
οἷα.) This doubtless is Seleucia of Pieria; concerning which
StraboP tells us, Mera δὲ τὴν Κιλικίαν πρώτη πόλις ἐστὶ τῶν
Σύρων Σελεύκια, ἡ ἐν Πιερίᾳ, καὶ πλησίον ᾿Ορόντης ἐκδίδωσι πο-
tapos’ Beyond Cilicia, the first city in Syria is Seleucia, which
is said to be in Pieria. So Xylander translates it, leaving
out the version of the last clause wholly ; intimating, that
‘the river Orontes pours itself into the sea not far from this
place.” And to this the situation and distances in Ptolemy
do agree.
Seleucia of Pieria, 68. 36. 35. 26.
The mouth of the river Orontes, 68. 30.35. 30.
Pliny4 also affirms that Seleucia in Pieria is the very first
coast of Syria from Cilicia: “ Latitudo (Syrie) a Seleucia
Pierize, ad oppidum in Kuphrate Zeugma, DX XV. M.P.”
“ The latitude (of Syria) from Seleucia of Pieria to Zeugma,
a town upon Euphrates, is 525 miles.”
᾿Απέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν Κύπρον: From thence they sailed to
Cyprus.]| How great a multitude of Jews there were in
Cyprus may be somewhat conjectured from the times of
Trajan backward from this story": ᾿Εν τούτῳ οἱ κατὰ Κυρήνην
᾿Ιουδαῖοι, &e. “In the mean time, the Jews who dwelt about
Cyrene, under the conduct of one Andrew, fall both upon the
Romans and the Greeks, feed on their flesh, eat their bowels,
besmear themselves with their blood, and cover themselves
with their skins: many of them they sawed asunder from the
crown of the head down the middle; many of them they threw
to the wild beasts; many of them they forced to fight amongst
themselves, till they had destroyed above two hundred and
twenty thousand men. In Egypt and Cyprus they committed
P Lib. xiv. [c. 5.] Dion. Cass. in Vit. Trajani. [Ixviti, 32.]
a Nat. Hist. lib.v. cap.12. 5. Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 727.
Ch. xiii. 6, 8.] = Ewercitations upon the Acts. 113
the same kind of outrages, thet leader (of the Cypriots) being
Artemion ; where two hundred and forty thousand men were
lost: whence it came to pass that a Jew might not come into
Cyprus. But if by chance and stress of weather he put in
upon the island, he was killed. But the Jews, as by others,
so especially by Lucius, whom Trajanus sent upon that expe-
dition, were all subdued.”
Ver. 6: *Qu ὄνομα Βαρϊησοῦς: Whose name was Bar-jesus.
Ver. 8: ᾿Βλύμας ὁ μάγος" οὕτω yap μεθερμηνεύεται τὸ ὄνομα
αὐτοῦ: Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpreta-
tion).| I. It may be inquired whether ᾿Ιησοῦς, Jesus, in Bap-
Ἰησοῦς, Bar-jesus, be a proper name or an appellative. [ἢ the
Arabie in the Polyglot Bible it is writ as a proper name
yw Jesu; but in the Arabic of the Erpenian edition it is
writ as an appellative DIDS Jesus: and under the same
notion, the Syriac, taking the word for Bar-jesus, hath 73
Now Bar-Shumah, the son of a name, as Beza would have it:
but trulier, the son of ὦ swelling, or a wound: for SOW
and 21D is a tumor or pustule, in the Targumists of Jonathan
and of Jerusalem, upon Levit. xiii. 2; and in the Syriac, it is
ΩΣ. So also TIAN a wound is by that translated
SMW, Isa. i.6. lil. 5. And indeed Hlymas can no way
be the interpretation of Bar-jesus, if Jesus here be a proper
name, and especially if it must be writ YW).
II. I would therefore write Bar-Jesus in Hebrew letters
thus, WWy" 7D a word derived from Ὁ) which signifies
to waste away, or be corroded and worn by a disease. So
Peal. vi. 8. xxi. 10. YY Oyo ΠΣ mine eye is consumed,
or, as the Interlinear, corroded, because of grief. And that the
Syriac had reference to this radix when he renders it by
NOW A the son of a wound, or a swelling, proceeding from a
disease, is little to be doubted; and with this etymology the
word Hlymas agrees excellently well.
III. There are those that would have it to be the inter-
pretation of the word μάγος ; that is, that the Arabic word
ΜΟΥ [Akima], and so Elymas, is the same with μάγος, a
sorcerer ; which does not seem very distant from truth. Once
indeed such a conceit pleased me well enough; but since,
these two things, well considered, have led me another way :—
t English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 687.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. I
114 Tlebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xiii. 9.
1. Because it may reasonably be doubted whether St. Luke
would explain μάγος, a well-known word, by a word far more
unknown. Besides, why should this sorcerer only be called
Elymas, whenas, according to that etymology, all persons of
the same art might have the same name?
2. Because the Syriac and Arabie do not begin the word
Elymas with the letter ἢ but ἢ. I little doubt, therefore,
but this name “/ymas takes its original from the Arabic
word s7a"S33 Alina or Elima, which signifies to grieve or be
tormented. And how this sense agrees with the word WWV
any one may see: for what can be nearer akin than fo con-
sume away, and to grieve; and to waste away by a dis-
temper, and be under torment? So that I suppose this
sorcerer was called in his own Hebrew name WWy" 723 Bar-
jesus, and went by that name among the Hebraizing Jews :
but amongst those that spake Arabic, EL/ymas: which in
the Arabic tongue signifies the same thing. I confess it is
a somewhat unusual thing for St. Luke to render a Hebrew
name by Arabic, and not by Greek; which the evangelists
commonly do. But it seems that this magician was born and
bred in some place or country where the Arabic was the
mother-tongue, inhabited by Jews also that used their own
language; and from thence he came to be known by this
twofold name. I am mistaken if Jabneh itself, a known
academy of the Jews, and sometimes the seat of the Sanhe-
drim, was not in such a country. For it may be made out
elsewhere that it is very probable the whole Philistine coun-
try, at least the greatest part of it, did use the Arabie as
their mother-tongue.
Ver. 9g: Σαῦλος δὲ, 6 καὶ Παῦλος: Then Saul, who also ws
called Paul.| Here is both his Hebrew and Roman name
too, upon the account of that relation he had to both nations.
He was by his parentage a Jew, and so called Sau/; but
withal he was a free denizen of Rome, and thence had the
name of Paul. Under the same notion Si/as is called δὲέ-
vanus: for he also was a citizen of Rome, as may be collected
out of Acts xvi. 37. The apostle, having hitherto conversed
chiefly amongst the Jews, retains his Jewish name ; but being
now declared the apostle of the Gentiles, and travelling amongst
the Gentiles, St. Luke gives him his Gentile name only.
,
Ch. xii. 10, &e.] Hvercitations upon the Acts. 115
Ver.10: Υἱὲ διαβόλου: Thou child of the devil.) Is not
this much of the same import with that in the Old Testament,
ΡΥ ΚΞ son of Belial? ἸΔῸ ΣΞ at first hearing seems
to sound very harshly; and indeed, at first sight, might
appear as if it signified the firstborn of Satan: but it is given
to a certain Rabbin to his praise, and as a title of honour®, in
a far different signification, the word yow taking its derivation
from OW to decline from.
Ver. 12: ᾿Ανθύπατος" The deputy.] This is a word much
in use amongst the Talmudists, with a little variation only in
the reading. “R. Chanina and R. Joshua Ben Levi passed
PIOPT RMD WIN WIP before the ἀνθύπατος, or deputy of
Cesarea. He seeingy them rose up to them. His own people
say unto him, ‘ Dost thou rise up to these Jews?’ He an-
swered them and said, ‘I saw their faces as the faces of
angels2.’”? See the Aruch upon the word.
Ver. 13: Ἦλθον εἰς Πέργην τῆς Παμφυλίας: They came to
Perga in Pamphylia.| From Paphos in Cyprus, whether old
or new (both being maritime places situated on the western
shore of the island), they seemed to sail into the mouth of the
river Cestrus ; concerning which Strabo hath this passage? :
Εἶθ᾽ ὁ Κέστρος ποταμὸς, &e. ““ Then there is the river Cestrus,
which when one hath sailed sixty furlongs, he comes to the
city Perga, near which is the temple of Diana of Perga, in a
high place, where every year there is a solemn convention.”
Ptolemy also speaks of the river Cestrus, and of the cataract,
concerning which Strabo hath some mention.
But Mela» hath this passage: “ Thence there are two
strong rivers, Oestros and Cataractes: Oestros is easily na-
vigable ; but Cataractes hath its name from the violence of
its running: amongst these is the city Perga,” ὅθ. One
may justly suspect an error in the writer here, writing Oestros
for Cestros; and it is something strange that Olivarius hath
taken no notice of it.
We may conjecture there was no synagogue of Jews in
y Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 728.
2 Hieros. Beracoth, fol. 9. 1.
x Hieros. Jevamoth, fol. 3.1. Bab. a Geograph. lib. xiv. [4.]
Jevamoth, fol. 16. 1. b Mela, lib.i. cap. 14.
12
u English folio edition, vol. ii. p.
88.
*
116 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiii. 14, 15.
Perga; because there is no mention of it, nor any memorable
thing recorded as done by the apostles here; only that John,
whose surname was Mark, did in this place depart from
them: for what reason is not known.
Ver. 14: Παρεγένοντο eis ᾿Αντιόχειαν τῆς Πισιδίας. They
came to Antioch in Pisidia.| Strabo reckons up thirteen
cities in Pisidiae from Artemidorus, amongst which he makes
no mention of Antioch. But Pliny¢ tells us, “ Insident ver-
tici Pisidia quondam Solymi appellati, &e. There are that
inhabit the top of Pisidia, who were once called Solymites ;
their colony is Czesarea, the same is Antioch.” And Ptolemy,
Πόλεις δέ εἰσιν ἐν Παμφυλίᾳ μεσόγειοι, Φρυγίας μὲν Σελεύκεια,
Πισιδίας δὲ ᾿Αντιόχειας The inland cities in Pamphylia are
Seleucia of Phrygia and Antioch of Pisidia. Where the
interpreter most confusedly, “ Civitates sunt in provincia
mediterranea, Phrygia quidem Pisidize, Seleucia Pisidiz, An-
tiochia :” that is, there are cities in the midland country,
Phrygia of Pisidia, Seleucia of Pisidia, Antioch ; and in the
margin he sets Czesarea.
᾿Εκάθισαν: They sat down.| So it is expressed commonly of
any one that teaches; 2°71, he sat down. And if the rulers
of the synagogue had no other knowledge of Barnabas and
Saul, they might gather they were preachers from this, that
when they entered the synagogue they sat down, according to
the custom of those that taught or preached.
Ver. 15: Mera δὲ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν"
After the reading of the law and the prophets.| But in what
language were the law and the prophets read in this syna-
gogue? It is generally supposed, that in the synagogues of
the Hellenists the Greek Bible was read. But was that
tongue understood amongst the Pisidians? Strabo, at the
end of his thirteenth book, tells us, “ The Cibyratian pre-
fecture was reckoned amongst the greatest of Asia: Τέταρσι
δὲ γλώτταις ἐχρῶντο of Κιβυράται, τῇ Πισιδικῇ, τῇ Σολύμων, τῇ
“Ἑλληνίδι, τῇ Λύδων: The Cibyrates used four languages, the
Pisidian, the Solyman, the Greek, and Lydian. Where we
see the Pisidian tongue is expressly distinguished from the
Greek. If Moses and the prophets, therefore, were read here
© Strabo, lib. xii. [7.] ἃ Plin. lib. v. cap. 27.
eee
Ch. xili.16, &c.] Hvercitations upon the Acts. 27
in the Greek tongue, were they understood by those in Pisidia ¢
Yes, you will say; for the very name of the city Antioch
speaks it to have been a Greek colony. Grant this: but then
suppose a Jewish synagogue in some city of Pisidia that was
purely Pisidian, such as Selge, Sagalessus, Pernelissus, &c., or
in some city of the Solymites or of the Lydians, in what
language was the law read there? Doubtless in the same
tonguee and the same manner that it was read in the syna-
gogue of the Hebrews, i. 6. in the original Hebrew, some
interpeter assisting, and rendering it to them in their mother-
tongue.
“Ver. 16: Οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεόν: And ye that fear God. |
That is, proselytes. **‘ Blessed is every one that feareth the
Lord, that walketh in his ways,’ Psalm exxviii.1. He doth
not say, Blessed is “Israel, or Blessed are the priests, or
Blessed the Levites; but Blessed is every one that feareth
the Lord, ΤΙ ay OW OM songs These are the proseytes,
the φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεὸν, they that fear the Lord. According
as it is said of Israel, ‘ Blessed art thou, O Israel,’ so is it
said of these, ‘ Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord.’
Now of what proselyte is it said that he is blessed? It is said
of the proselyte of justice. Not as those Cuthites, of whom it
is said, that ‘ they feared the Lord, and yet worshipped their
own godst.’”
Ver. 18: ᾿Ετροποφόρησεν αὐτούς: He suffered their manners. |
The particle és seems to exclude the reading of ἐτροποφόρησεν,
which word we meet with in the Seventy, Deut. 1.31; ἐτροπο-
φόρησε, God did indeed bear with them full forty years: and
so you will say, ἐτροποφόρησεν αὐτοὺς is not wide from the
truth. But the apostle adding the particle ds, about the time
of forty years, seems chiefly to respect that time which went
between the fatal decree that they should not enter the land,
and the going in.
Ver.19: "EOvn ἑπτά: Seven nations.| The Rabbins very
frequently, when they mention the Canaanitish people, give
them this very term of the seven nations, NYDN ΤῸ.
Ver. 208: “Qs ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα. About the
space of four hundred and fifty years.| Amongst the many
€ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 689. f Bemed. rab. fol. 227. 2.
& Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 720.
118 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiii. 20.
things that are offered upon this difficulty I would choose this:
that in this number are reckoned the years of the judges, and
the years of those tyrants that oppressed Israel, computing
them disjunctly and singly : which at first sight any one would
think ought to be so reckoned, but that 1 Kings vi. 1 gives a
check to a too large computation.
1. The years of the judges and tyrants, thus distinguished,
answer the sum exactly :—
The Judges. The Tyrants.
Othniel 40 Chusham δ
Ehud 80 Eglon 18
Deborah 40 Sisera 20
Gideon 40 Midian 7
Abimelech 9 Ammon 18
Tola 23 The Philistines 40
Jair 22
Jephthah 6 In all 111
Ibsan 7
Elon IO
Abdon ὃ
Samson 20
Eli 40
In all 339
So that reckoning three hundred and thirty-nine, and one
hundred and eleven together, the sum amounts exactly to four
hundred and fifty.
II. Josephus! seems expressly to follow this computationi:
“Solomon began to build his temple in the fourth year of his
reign, and in the second month, which the Macedonians term
Artemision, the Hebrews [jar. Mera ἔτη πεντακόσια καὶ ἐννε-
νήκοντα καὶ δύο τῆς ax’ Αἰγύπτου ᾿Ισραηλιτῶν ἐξόδου: After five
hundred and ninety and two years from the Israelites’ going out
of Laypt.
In 1 Kings vi. 1 there are reckoned four hundred and four-
score years: Josephus, five hundred and ninety-two, exceed-
ing that number by a hundred and twelve years: so as the
h English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 690.
i Antiq. lib. viii. cap. 2. [Hudson, p. 341.] [viii. 3. 1.]
Ch. xiii. 33.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 119
three years of the tyrants make the number to exceed in this
place.
III. In the particular summing up of these years, I cannot
omit what is said concerning Samson in the Jewish writers‘ :
‘Samson saith, ‘O Lord eternal, give me a recompense for
one of mine eyes in this world, and for the other in the world
to come. One place saith, DOYS Sysniyemy Dipaw
mw And he judged Israel forty years. Another place saith,
my ony snips MEW NIT And he judged Israel
twenty years. R. Acha saith, ‘ By this it is hinted, that the
Philistines were afraid of him twenty years after his death,
as they had stood in fear of him twenty years while he was
alive.’ ”
From these words we might imagine that it was written
concerning Samson, that he judged Israel forty years; which
yet is nowhere found: only it is said in two places, Judg. xv.
20, xvi. 31, that “he judged twenty years:” whence the
Jewish writers draw that conclusion as was said before, viz.
that the Philistines were under the terror of him for the space
of twenty years after he had been dead. Indeed, it is said of
Eli, that “he judged Israel forty years,” 1 Sam. iv. 18: which
when I observe the LXX rendering by εἴκοσι ἔτη, ‘twenty’
years, 1 cannot but suspect they might somewhat favour the
received opinion amongst the Jews.
Ver. 33: Ἔν τῷ ψαλμῷ τῷ δευτέρῳ. In the second psalin. |
«Why! are the daily prayers to the number of eighteen? R.
Joshua Ben Levi saith, ‘ It is according to the eighteen psalms,
from the beginning of the psalms to The Lord hear thee m
the day of trouble [Psalm xx.1.]. But if any one say to thee,
“They are nineteen,’ ἸἼ) Ὁ sw n> wa ΓΙΌ wb ὙΟΝ
say thow to him, ‘Why do the heathen rage? [1. 6. the second
psalm] 7s not one of them. Hence they say, ‘ He that prays
and is not heard, it is necessary for him to fast too.’ ””’
I. Judge hence whether this second psalm were joined or
confounded with the first, when it seems in some measure
sequestered from the whole number. And do you observe
the Rabbins’ way of arguing? Being to prove that the num-
ber of the daily prayers being eighteen was adapted to the
k Hieros. Sotah, fol. 17. 2. 1 Hieros. Taanith, fol. 65. 3.
120 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xiii. 33.
number of the eighteen psalms, from the beginning of the
book to that place, The Lord hear thee in the day of
trouble, &c. Psalm xx, he takes refuge in a common axiom
of theirs, ‘‘ He that prayeth and is not heard must fast also.”
As if that maxim was founded upon the equality of numbers,
and the authors of that maxim did so design it: q. d. He
that pours out eighteen prayers, according to the number of
those eighteen psalms, and is not heard, let him fast, and he
shall be heard, according to the tenor of the psalm immedi-
ately following, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble,
i.e. in the day when thou troublest and afflictest thyself with
fasting. ᾿
If. ΤΠ not make any nice inquiry for what reason they
should exclude the second psalm out of the number. We find
in it, however shut out of the number, a considerable testi-
mony to the resurrection of the Messiah: and perhaps to this
the apostle may have some respect in these words. But if
not, by this his noting the number and order of the psalm we
may guess he spake to this sense, viz. Ye have a testimony of
the resurrection of Christ in the very entrance of the Book of
Psalms, so near the beginning of it, that we meet with it even
in the second psalm.
Υἱός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά oe Thou art my Son,
this day have 1 begotten thee.| [ἰ. Solomon confesseth that the
Rabbins do interpret this psalm of the Messiah; but he had
rather it should be applied to David. For the Jews take
special care that the Messias should not be acknowledged as
the genuine Son of God. Hence™ Midras Tillim™, “ Thou
art my Son: hence we may answer the heretics, who say ‘ He
is Son to God. Do thou answer, WIN IDX TON b 2
He doth not say, ‘ Thou art Son to me” ANN ἋΣ soy but,
‘ Thou art my Son. [A very learned distinction indeed !] As
the master speaking kindly to his servant may say to him,
‘1 love thee like my own son.” So the Targumist®; ‘“ The
Lord said max Ὁ sand rad wan “ Thou art beloved to
me as a son is to his father.”
They do indeed acknowledge that the Messiah is concerned
in this Psalmp; but then if you will be a true Jew indeed,
m Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 730. " In loc. ° Ibid.
P Succah, fol. 52.1.
Ch. xiii. 3 ai] Exercitations upon the Acts. 121
you must have a care how you acknowledge him the begotten 4
Son of God. It would be a vain and impertinent thing to
collect all their little artifices by which they endeavour to
evade the force of this place. It were much more proper for
us to observe the way of the apostle’s arguing, and by what
means he makes it out that these words of the Psalmist point
at the resurrection of the Messiah. Take this passage by
the wayt: “R. Houna saith, POW spon mpon Ἃ
There are three portions of chastisements divided. The fathers
of the world and all generations received one part; the gene-
ration of persecution another; and the generation of the
Messias another. And when his time cometh, then will the
Holy Blessed say, TOUT M2 snd ὧν It lies upon
me to make him a new creature. And so he saith, DVT
path To-day have I begotten thee.”
When the Jews ask a sign of our Saviour, he constantly
gives them the sign of Jonas the prophet; that is, that his
resurrection, which should come to pass, should be a most
undoubted proof for him that he is the Son of God, the true
Messias. So Rom. i. 4, “He was declared to be the Son of
God by his resurrection from the dead :” for so was he indeed
distinguished from all mortals and sons of men. And God
saith he had then begotten him, when he had given a token
that he was not a mere man by his divine power whereby he
had raised him from the dead. And according to the tenor
of the whole psalm, God is said to have begotten him then
when he was ordained king in Sion, and all nations subdued
under him. Upon which words that passage of our Saviour,
uttered immediately after he had arisen from the dead, is a
good commentary: “ All power is given unto me,” &e. Matt.
ΧΧΥΠΙ. 18,
What do those words mean, Matt. xxvi. 29, “I will not
drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when
I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom?” They
seem to look this way, viz. “ 1 will drink no more of it before
my resurrection.” For in truth his resurrection was the
beginning of his. kingdom, when he had overcome those ene-
mies of his, Satan, hell, and death: from that time was he
4 English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 691. τ Midr, Tillim, ubi supr.
122 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiii. 34.
begotten and established king in Zion, I am mistaken if
that of Psalm ex. 3 doth not in some measure fall in here
also; which give me leave to render by way of paraphrase
into such a sense as this: “Thy people shall be a willing
people in the day of thy power: it shall be a willing people in
the beauties of holiness; it shall be a willing people from the
womb of the morning: thine is the dew of thy youth.” Now
the dew of Christ is that quickening power of his by which
he can bring the dead to life again, Isa. xxvi. 19, “ And the
dew of thy youth, O Christ, is thine :” that is, “It is thine
own power and virtue that raiseth thee again.” 1 would
therefore apply those words from the womb of the morn-
ing to his resurrection; because the resurrection of Jesus
was the dawn of the new world, the morning of the new
ereation.
Ver. 34: Ta ὅσια Δαβὶδ τὰ πιστά" The sure mercies of David.]
It hath been generally observed that this phrase, τὰ ὅσια, is
taken from the Greek version in Isa. lv. 3. But it is not so
generally remarked, that by David was understood the Mes-
siah; which yet the Rabbins themselves, Kimchi and Ab.
Ezra, have well observed, the following verse expressly con-
firming it. The resurrection of our Saviour therefore, by
the interpretation of the apostle, is said to be τὰ ὅσια τοῦ
Χριστοῦ τὰ πιστὰ, the sure mercies of Christ. And God by his
prophet (from whence this clause is taken) doth promise the
raising again of the Messiah, and all the benefits of that re-
surrection. He had foretold and promised his death, chap. lili.
But what mercies could have been hoped for by a dead Mes-
siah, had he been always to have continued dead? They had
been weak and unstable kindnesses, had they terminated in
death : he promises mercies therefore, firm and stable, that
were never to have end: because they should be always flow-
ing and issuing out of this resurrection.
Whereas these things are quoted out of the prophet in the
words of the LX-X, varying a little from the prophet’s words;
and those much more, Ἴδετε οἱ καταφρονηταὶ, Behold, ye
despisers, and wonder, We. ver. 41, it might be inquired in
what language the apostle preached ; as also in what lan-
guage Moses and the prophets were read in that synagogue,
ver. 15. If we say, in the Greek, it is a question whether the
Ch. xiii. 41, 42.] Ezercitations upon the Acts. 123
Pisidians could understand it. If we say in the Pisidian lan-
guage, it is hardly to be believed the Bible was then rendered
into that language. It is remarkable what was quoted above
out of Strabo, where he mentions four tongues, amongst them
the Greek and the Pisidian distinct from one another. But
this I have already discussed in the notes upon ver. 15 of this
chapter.
Ver. 418: Ἴδετε of καταφρονηταί, ἕο. Behold, ye despisers, &c.|
Dr. Pocockt here, as always, very learnedly and accurately
examines what the Greek interpreters, Hab.i, read; saving
in the mean time the reading which the Hebrew Bibles ex-
hibit; for it is one thing how the Greek read it, and another
thing how it should be truly read.
Ver. 42: Παρεκάλουν τὰ ἔθνη, &e. The Gentiles besought, &c.]
It is all one as to the force of the words, as far as I see,
whether you render them they besought the Gentiles or the
Gentiles besought them. The latter version hath chiefly ob-
tained: but what absurdity is it, if we should admit the
former? and doth not the very order of the words seem to
favour it? If it had been τὰ ἔθνη παρεκάλουν, one might have
inclined- to the latter without controversy; but being it is
παρεκάλουν τὰ ἔθνη, there is place for doubting. And if it
were so, that the Jews resented the apostles’ doctrine so ill,
that they went out of the synagogue disturbed and offended,
as some conjecture, and that not improbably, we may the
easier imagine that the apostles besought the Gentiles that
tarried behind that they would patiently hear these things
again.
Eis τὸ μεταξὺ σάββατον" The next sabbath.| 1. The word
μεταξὺ, as the lexicons tell us, amongst other things denotes
henceforward or hereafter. Now this must be noted, that this
discourse was held in the forenoon; for it was that time of
the day only that they assembled in the synagogue; in the
afternoon they met in Beth Midras. Let us consider, there-
fore, whether this phrase will not bear this sense, ‘They
besought that afterward, upon that sabbath, viz. in the after-
noon, they would hear again such a sermon.’ And then,
whether the Gentiles besought the apostles or the apostles the Gen-
tales it doth not alter the case.
5. English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 692. t Poc. Miscell. 3.
124 Hebrew and Talmudical | Ch. xiv. 6.
II. Let us inquire whether the apostles and the Christian
church did not now observe and celebrate the Lord’s day. It
ean hardly be denied ; and if so, then judge whether the apo-
stles might not invite the Gentiles that they would assemble
again the next day, that is, upon the Christian sabbath, and
hear these things again. If we yield that the Lord’s day is
to be called the sabbath, then we shall easily yield that it
might be rightly called μεταξὺ σάββατον, the sabbath after.
And indeed, when the speech was amongst the Jews or
Judaizing proselytes, it is no wonder if it were called the sab-
bath. As if the apostles had said, ‘To-morrow we celebrate
our sabbath; and will you on that day λαληθῆναι τὰ ῥήματα,
have these words preached to you ?’
III. Or let τὸ μεταξὺ σάββατον be the week betwixt the two
sabbaths ; as that expression must be rendered νηστεύω dls τοῦ
σαββάτου, I fast twice in the week. then, as the sense is easy,
that they besought them the same things might be repeated
on the following week, so the respect might have more parti-
cularly been had to the second and fifth days in the week,
when they usually met together in the synagogue.
CHAP. XIV.
Ver. 6: Eis tas πόλεις τῆς Λυκαονίας, Λύστραν καὶ Δέρβην᾽
To Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia.| Strabo tells us
expressly that Iconium also was within Lycaonia" ; “ Thence
are the Lyeaonian hills plain, cold, naked, and2pastures for
wild asses, &c. There are also the lakes, the greater called
Coralis, the less called Trogitis. ᾿Ενταῦθα δέ που καὶ τὸ ᾿Ικό-
νιόν ἐστιν About those places stands Icontum, a town built in a
better soil than what I mentioned as the pasture of wild
asses.”” Ptolemy also places Iconium in Lycaonia®. How
comes it to pass then that St. Luke doth not eall Zconium a
city of Lycaonia, as well as Derbey and Lystra? Because
Iconium was of something a distinet jurisdiction. “ Datur et
tetrarchia ex Lycaoniaz,” &e. ‘There is also granted a
tetrarchy out of Lycaonia, on that side that bounds upon
Galatia, consisting of fourteen cities, the most famous of
which is Teonium.”
" Strab. Geogr. lib. xii. [6.] Υ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 693.
x Ptol. Tab. Asie 1. cap. 6. 2 Plin. Nat. Hist. 1. v. Οἱ 27. 2
Ch, xiv. 11, &e.] Evxercitations upon the Acts. 125
Ver. 11: Λυκαονιστί In the speech of Lycaonia.| Τῦ is hard
to say what the Lycaonian tongue was; nor is it easy to say
why this was added, when it might have sufficed to have said,
They lift up their voices, saying, The gods, &c.
I. I should hardly be persuaded the Lycaonian language
was any Greek dialect, when it sufficiently appears by what
I lately quoted out of Strabo that there were peculiar mother-
tongues in these countries distinct from the Greek. And he
himself remarkethy that the Carians, who are situated some-
thing nearer Greece than the Lycaonians, were called by
Homer βαρβαρόφωνοι, people of a barbarous lanquage. So the
Phrygians also were barbari, barbarous.
Let us hear once again what Strabo saith@: “The Cap-
padocians, who use the same language, are those chiefly who
are bounded southward with that part of Cilicia that is called
Taurus, eastward by Armenia and Colchis; καὶ τοῖς μεταξὺ
ἑτερογλώττοις ἔθνεσι, and other interjacent countries that use a
different language.” What amongst these other languages
should be the Lycaonian, let him find out that hath leisure
and capacity to do it; as for my part, I neither can nor dare
attempt it.
CHAP: XV)
Ver. 2: Γενομένης οὗν στάσεως καὶ σηζητήσεως, ἕο. Dissen-
sion and disputation, &c.] Were I to render these words into
the Talmudic language (which was the school-language) I
would render στάσεως by NIIP, and συζητήσεως by NMP,
terms very well known in the schools; according to which
idiom if they were expounded there would be no difficulty
in them.
"Eragav ἀναβαίνειν Παῦλον, ὅσο. They determined that Paul
should go up, &c.] Of this journey Paul himself makes some
mention, Gal. ii. 1; where he intimates that he went up by
revelation: that is, given to the ministers of Antioch ; for
it would not have been said ἔταξαν, they determined, if the
revelation had been made to Paul himself. Amongst others
that accompanied him in his journey, Titus was one; but
where he adopted him to himself, in those his journeys de-
scribed chap. xiii and xiv, let him guess that can.
y Lib. xiv. [2.] a Strab. lib. xii. [1.]
z Pausan. lib. 1. Ὁ Leusden’s edit., vol. 11. p. 732.
126 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xv. 7, &e.
Ver. 7: ᾿Αφ᾽ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων" A good while ago, δ. 1 do
not question but St. Peter in these words had an eye to that
saying of our Saviour, J will give thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, viz. that ‘thou mayest first open the door of the
gospel to the Gentiles... Then it was that the Lord chose
him, that, by his mouth first, the Gentiles might hear the word
of the gospel, and might believe. This, he saith, was done ἐν
ἡμέραις ἀρχαίαις, in former days; that is, as he speaks else-
where, in the time when Jesus went in and out amongst them,
Acts 1. 21: which time is expressed by our evangelists by ἀπ᾽
“apxijs, from the beginning, Luke i. 2.
Ver. 16°: ᾿Ανοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαβὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν"
Lwili build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down.]
“Rab. Nachman said to R. Isaac, ΙΝ ΤῸΝ ae YOO NW
sp) 3 Whence art thou taught when Bar Naphli will come ?
He saith unto him, %S53 ἋΣ {S82 Who ws this Bar Naphli 9
The other replied, ‘ It is the Messiah.’ ‘ Dost thou then eall
the Messias Bar Naphli? ‘ Yes, saith he, ‘for it is written,
In that day I will build again the tabernacle of David nbpian
hannopheleth, falling downs.” μὴ
Ver. 17: Ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
&e. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, &c.]
I. I think it will hardly be denied by any but that St. James
spake now in Hebrew, i.e. in the Syriac tongue. For reason
will tell us that the council at Jerusalem would be managed
best in the langeage of Jerusalem; and indeed the word
Συμεὼν, Symeon, ak which he begins his discourse, argues
that he spoke Hebrew amongst Hebrews; not so much in
that he saith Simeon and not Simon as in that he saith Sv-
μεὼν, with the letter v, and not Σιμεὼν, Simeon; the Syriac
tongue affecting the letter w in the first syllable, as in S793,
NNDIT, NAW, and many such words. So also in proper
names, TWD ἢ a Ben Sutda, in Jerusalem language, for Ben
Satda, and ERA Mugdala, for Magdala.
II. Neither, I presume, will it be denied that the apostle,
quoting this passage of the prophet, recites the very words
as they are in the Hebrew ; which was always done in their
schools and sermons: when they recited any place or testi-
mony of the Scripture they did it always in the very original
© English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 694. 4 Sanhedr. fol. 69. 2.
Ch. xv. 17.] Exercitations upon the Acts. © 127
words. But do you think that the Hebrew words of Amos
in the mouth of James were DUN OUND WIAD wo that
the residue of men might seek, in which sense the Greek words
speak? The Hebrew text in Amos ix. 12 is thus, wat
DIT MANWAMS AW that they may possess the remnant
of Edom. But the Greek interpreters have it, ὅπως ἂν ἐκζη-
τήσωσιν, &e., that the residue of men might seek after the Lord ;
where they add Κύριον, the Lord, of their own, and is not the
prophet’s: nor indeed is it in the Roman copy, but in the
Alexandrian MS. it is.
It is hardly worth our inquiry whether through careless-
ness or set design they have gone thus wide from the words
of the prophet ; for indeed nothing is more common with
those iterpreters than to depart after that manner from the
Hebrew text. One may suspect that they did it on purpose
here, partly as envying so comfortable a promise made to
Edom, and partiy because in the prophecy next following it
is said, There shall be no remnant of the house of Esau,
Obad., ver. 18: where they distinguish that also by rendering
TW by πυροφόρος, one that carricth fire.
111. The Hebrew words of Amos quoted by James do suit
very well with his design and purpose, when to prove ‘ that
God visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for
his name,’ he cites this, J will build again the tabernacle of
David, that they may possess the remnant of Edom: To
λεῖμμα τοῦ ᾿Εδὼμ, the remnant of Edom, in the same sense with
the τὸ λεῖμμα τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ, the remnant of Israel, mentioned
Rom. xi. 5. And by naming Edom, one of the bitterest
enemies that Israel had, from whom a remnant should be
taken out and reserved, the thing propounded is the more
clearly made out; viz. that God had visited the Gentiles,
&e. The words also in the Greek version, which St. Luke
follows, do prove the thing too; mention being made of “all
nations seeking after the Lord :” and therefore he doth the
more safely follow that version here, which indeed he doth
almost every where; and for what reasons he so doth I have
observed in another place.
IV. I know that the Talmudic and other Jewish writers
understand by the Edomites commonly the Romans; but why
128 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xv. 17.
they do so does not so well appear. But their impudence suf-
ficiently appears when they® introduce the Romans‘ owning
themselves for the children of Esau, or Edom, and making
their boasts of it. ‘“ At Rome once within seventy years,
obw OTN PN, they bring forth a sound man {one that
represents Esau], 13°77 COUN boyy IMS Pa and make
him ride upon a lame man {that represents Jacob, and by
that they shew how Esau now ruleth over Jacob] ; rors
PONW OTS YTD MN and they clothe him with the garments
of Adam [those were WWM ἼΔΩ the garments of desire that
Ksaug had]; and they put upon his head ἼΔ Sy YEP p
byynun the skin of the head of Rabbi Ishmael [he was the
high priest that had been killed by the kingdom of the Ro-
mans, but had so comely a face, that Czesar’s daughter
caused the skin of it to be taken off and preserved in bal-
sam]: ΝΣ NY bona sb sbriy And they hang upon him
a pearl of the weight of a zuzee, and proclaim before him, JD
psy ΝΥ ns ΟΣ VP The computation of the lord
[of Jacob, as one Gloss; or of Jsaac, as another] is falsehood
[that is, his prophecy, by which he promised redemption to
his children, is a lie]: the brother of our lord [i.e. of Esau]
is a deceiver. wan 8S wan SOT AM ONT ND Whosoever
sees [this sight at present], let him see it; and whosoever doth
not see it, shall not see it {that is, till the seventieth year again}.
What did thy deceiver get by his deceit, and what did that
falsifier get by his falsehood? And so at length conclude,
(Mua) ad "0 Woe to this man when he shall arise,
[| Woe to Esau when Jacob shall arise. |”
I thought fit to transcribe these things only to give you a
specimen with what confidence the Jewish writers esteem
the Romans for Edomites; of whom they hardly ever speak
without spleen and hatred, curse and abhorrency. The
words shut within the parentheses are not mine, but those
of the Gloss.
V. I do not believe that the Romans were thus taken for
Edomites by the Jews when the Greek version was wrote :
but yet 1 do believe that at that time the 'domites were as
odious to the Jews: so that it is no wonder if those inter-
€ Avodah Zarah, fol. 11. 2. & Gen. xxvii. 15.
! Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p..733- 4 English folio edit., vol. i. p. 695.
Ch. xv. 20.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 129
preters from that hatred, should envy them those things
which Amos had foretold should happen to them “that re-
mained of Edom,” and diverted his words another way :
“This! is the offering thou shalt receive from them, gold,
silver, and brass, Exod. xxv. 3. ‘The gold is Babel: the silver
is Media: the brass is Greece, Dan. ii: but there is no men-
tion of iron: why so? Because wicked Edom, that wasted the
sanctuary, is likened to that; to teach us that God in time
to come will accept an offering from every kingdom except
Edom.”
Ver. 20: ᾿Απέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων Kal τῆς
πορνείας." That they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from
fornication.| I. It may with good reason be asked whether
these four things were forbidden under one and the same no-
tion, namely this, that the converted Gentiles might not give
offence to the Jews if they should not abstain from all these
things: or whether there might not be something else inter-
woven, viz. that those converted Gentiles might not relapse
into something of their former heathenism: the abstaining
from pollutions of idols, and from fornication seems to respect
this latter, as that of abstaining from things strangled and from
blood, the former.
In the mean time one might wonder at the heart and fore-
head of the Nicolaitans, who not only practised but taught
diametrically contrary to this decree of the apostles, Rev. ii.
14,20. Those Balaamites and Jezebelites, with what paint
could they beautify that horrid and aceursed doctrine and
practice of theirs? was it the liberty of the gospel they pre-
tended? or rather, did they not abuse that love and charity
commanded in the gospel? namely, making a show of some
more transcendent friendship amongst themselves, they would
eat any thing with any man, and lie carnally with any
woman.
I have oftentimes thought of those words of the apostle,
1 Tim. iv. 3, “ forbidding to marry.” - Who were these that
forbade to marry? but especially upon what account did they
forbid it? We know, indeed, upon what unreasonable reason
marriage is forbidden to some in the Romish communion in
these latter ages of the world: bunt to whom and upon what
i Shemoth Rabba, fol. 152. 3.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. K
130 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xv. 20.
oceasion it was forbidden in those last days of the Jewish
economy, to which times the apostle refers in this place, is not
easily determined.
As to the clause that follows immediately in the apostle,
“ commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created
to be received,” &e.; that passage’ comes into my mind,
“When the temple was destroyed the second time, the Pha-
risees” [1. 6. the separatists| “ were greatly multiphed in
Israel, who taught that it was not lawful to eat flesh nor to
drink wine. R. Joshua applied himself to them and said,
‘My sons, why do you not eat flesh, nor drink any wine?’
They say unto him, ‘ Shall we eat flesh, that were wont to
offer it upon the altar, and that altar is now broken down?
shall we drink wine, that were wont to pour it out upon the
altar, which altar is now gone? ‘If it be so,’ saith he, ‘ then
we should not eat bread, because the offerings of bread-corn
are ceased ; we should not eat any fruits, because the offering
of first-fruits is at an end; we should not drink water, because
the drink-offering is ceased,” &ce. And a little after; “ Since
the kingdom of iniquity” [the Roman empire] “hath decreed
sharp things against us—it is but just that we should ordain
amongst ourselves 7WN suns sou not to marry wives, nor
beget children, &c.; and so it would come to pass, that the
seed of Abraham would decay and fail of itself. But let Israel
rather be paw mistaken than (ue presumptuous.”
How! great a difference is there between these men and
the Nicolaitans! And yet these as foolishly and super-
stitiously erred in one extreme, as those did impiously and
filthily in the other. As to the Nicolaitans, we may wonder
at their ignorance, if they knew nothing of this decree of the
apostles; and their impudence in so bold a contradiction, if
they did.
᾿Απὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων: From pollutions of idols.]
In the epistle of the couneil it is ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, from
meats offered to idols. The Rabbins distinguish the matter
(when they discourse of what is forbidden concerning idolatry)
into ΓΜ SDN things prohibited to eat, and FIA MANION
things prohibited to use. The εἰδωλόθυτα, or things offered to
k Bava Bathra, fol. 60. 2.
! English folio edition, vol. ii. p.696. Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 734.
-
Ch. xv. 20. | Exercitations upon the Acts. 131
idols, were prohibited to eat; and all the utensils about any
idolatrous sacrifice were prohibited to use. ᾿Αλισγήματα τῶν
εἰδώλων doubtless comprehended all things offered to idols, and
perhaps all the utensils too: and it is no impertinent question,
whether that in the epistle commanding them ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδω-
λοθύτων, to absiain from things offered to idols, did not restrain
them from the use of all such utensils, as well as from the
eating of things offered.
Kal τῆς πορνείας" And from fornication.| Any one may
discern how obvious this twofold inquiry is; namely, of what
fornication the discourse here is? and for what reason /orni-
cation, whatsoever it is, should be reckoned here amongst the
ἀδιάφορα, or indifferent things ?
I. When I recollect what we frequently meet with amongst
the Rabbins, that some things are permitted “5 435
oiby for peace’ sake; and some things forbidden 5397 938%
OwIWON by reason of the customs of the Amorites, or the Gen-
tiles ; 1am apt to suspect in these decrees of the apostles there
is some relation to both; that it was permitted to the con-
verted Gentiles to judaize in some things for peace’ sake ;
but to abstain in other, not that they might not judaize, but
that they might not do as the heathen.
Il. Particularly in this prohibition of fornication, we must
consider that it is not so proper to think there needed any
peculiar command or prescript of the apostles to those that
had embraced Christianity against fornication, in the common
notion and acceptation of the word, whereas the whole tenor
of the gospel prescribed against it. And for that very reason
I cannot persuade myself that by blood forbidden in this place
we are to understand murder.
III. There was a certain fornication amongst the Jews that
seemed to them lawful, and had some colour of legitimation :
this was polygamy, Hos. iv.10; 375° 5) yw They shall
commit whoredom, and shall not increase : so the Chaldee and
Syriac and our own translation render it well. But now for-
nication, as it denotes whoredom, doth not wish or expect any
offspring, but the contrary rather: but the words relate to
bigamy or polygamy. For in ease of the wife’s barrenness, it
was a common thing for them to take to them another
K 2
132 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xv. 20.
woman, or more, for propagation’s sake: and this it is that
God brands with the reproachful name of fornication ; “ they
commit fornication, but do not multiply.” Whatever else is
understood by this word, I would certainly understand this ;
namely, that the apostles prescribed against polygamy, a thing
esteemed indifferent amongst the Jews (as fornication was
amongst the Gentiles), and therefore not unfitly mentioned
here amongst things indifferent.
Tell me in what place in the New Testament bigamy or
polygamy is forbidden, if not in this. Perhaps you will say,
in that of our Saviour, Matt. xix. 4,5; where indeed pro-
vision is made against putting away of a man’s wife, but
hardly against polygamy, especially comparing the apostle’s
words, 1 Cor. vi. 16. Provision is made that bishops and
deacons shall not have two wives, 1 Tim. iii. 2: and J should
not believe but that the same provision is made against the
bigamy of the laity. But where is that done if not in this
place?
IV. There was another fornication ordinarily so reckoned
also in the opinion of the Jews themselves (for they did not
account the having many wives to be fornication) ; and that
was, besides what they call simple fornication, their marrying
within the prohibited degrees, that which they commonly
ealled MY y nakedness. These marriages they were so
averse to, that to some of them they allotted ‘ death,’ to all
of them mraz or cutting off: concerning which Maimonides
speaks largely™. In the mean time they allowed the Gentile
that became a proselyte to the Jewish religion to marry
with his kindred, though never so near in blood, with his
sister if he pleased, or with his mother", &c. Hence per-
haps arose that incestuous marriage mentioned 1 Cor, v. 1.
They did well, therefore, to provide by this apostolical decree
against such kind of marriages as these, being so odious to
the Jews.
Kat τοῦ πνικτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος: And from things strangled,
and from blood.| These I suppose were forbidden the Gentile
converts for the sake of the Jews, and by way of condescen-
m Maimon. Issur. biah, cap.1. et per tot. tract. n Idem, ibid. cap.14.
° English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 697.
Ch. xv. 20.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 133
sion, that they might not take offence. By blood, therefore, I
can by no means understand murder: πνικτὸν, strangled, shall
be considered by and by.
I. For wherefore should any mention of murder come into
this present controversy? Were the Gentile converts to be
brought over to Moses, when the moral precepts of Moses
scarcely came in their minds as being the precepts even of
nature itself? But the question isP about ceremonials ; and
what hath murder to do in that? and, as I have already said,
what need could there be of such peculiar caution against
murder to those who had embraced the gospel of love and
peace ?
II. By the prohibition of blood, therefore, 1 make no ques-
tion but that caution is given against eating of blood; which
is more than once prohibited in the law4: and there could
hardly any thing except an idol be named that the Jew had
a greater abhorrence for than the eating of d/ood.
III. The Jews distinguish between "171 Ὁ VAN the member
of a living beast, and “TIT YA OT the blood of a living beast’.
The former is forbidden by that, ““ Flesh with the life thereof,
which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat.” The latter
also is forbidden, “Thou shalt not eat blood let out by the
cutting of a vein, or any other way, from any beast,” saith
R. Chaninah in the place above quoted. See also Pesikta and
R. Solomons; and, instead of more, that passaget: ‘*‘ Where-
fore is blood forbidden five times in Seripture! [Gen. ix. 4,
Lev. 111. 17, vil. 26, xvii. 10, Deut. xii. 16.] That the blood
of animals that are holy might be included, and the blood of
animals not holy, and the blood that was to be covered in the
dust, and the blood ὙΠΓΙ AN of the member of a living beast,
mann O71 and the blood that is let out,’ by the cutting of
a vein or otherwise. God himself adjudgeth him that eats
blood to be cut off, Lev. vii.27, &c. But as to this matter
there are wondrous nice and subtle questions and distinctions
laid down in Maimonides®; I will only transcribe this one:
ςς As to the blood that is let out, and the blood of the mem-
bers, viz. of the spleen, the kidneys, the testicles, and the
P Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p.735. in Gen. ix.
a4 Gen. ix. 4. Deut. xii. 16, &c. t Cherithuth, fol. 76. 2.
r Sanhedr. fol. 59. 1. « Maimon. Maacaloth Asuroth,
5. Pesikta in Deut. xii. R. Sol. cap. 6.
134 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xv. 20.
blood gathered about the heart in the time of slaying, and the
blood found about the liver, they are not guilty of cutting off:
but whoever eateth of any of that blood, let him be scourged :
because it is said, Thou shalt eat no blood. But concerning
being guilty to cutting off it is said, Because the life of the
flesh is in the blood. A man therefore is not guilty of cut-
ting off, unless he eats of that blood with which the life
goes out.”
IV. I know what the κρεάδια πνικτὰ, strangled flesh, in
Athenzeus* me&ns ; but that hath no place here, nor is there
any reason why such meats as he there sets on the table
should be forbidden even to the Jew. Nor would I by πνικτὸν,
strangled, understand WW } VAN the member of a living
beast, partly because I suppose that included in the word
αἵματος, blood; and partly because it is thus determined by
the Rabbinsy concerning it: ‘“‘ They learn by tradition, that
that which is said in the law, ‘ Thou shalt not eat the life with
the flesh, forbids the eating of a member torn from a living
animal : and concerning ‘THT 72 VAN the member cut off from
a living beast, God saith to Noah, ‘ But flesh with the life,
which is the blood thereof, shalt thou not eat.’” So that to
eat a member so cut off is to eat blood: and under that
clause καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, and from blood, is contained the prohi-
bition of eating both "M7 jd Ὁ the blood of a living beast,
and also SMT [3 VAN the member of a living beast. And
under that clause καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ, and of things strangled, is
the prohibition of eating flesh of a beast not well killed, so as
the blood issueth not out as it ought to do. Concerning
which there is a large discourse in the tract Cholin, obscure
and tedious enough ; however, I cannot but note one passage
out of it: “If any one desire to eat of a beast before the life
of it be gone, let him eut off a piece of flesh from the killing
place to the quantity of an olive, and salt it very well, and
wash it very well, and stay till the hfe of the beast be gone
out of him, and then he may eat it: this is equally lawful
both to the stranger and to the Israelite.” When we speak
of not eating of flesh which the blood is not duly got out of,
it is not necessary we should include within this rank ΓΙ.
x Lib. ix. [53.] Y Maim. Maacaloth Asuroth, eap. 5.
2 Cholin, fol. 33. 1.
Ch. xxiii. 2.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 135
that which dies of itself, and MDW that which is torn of wild
beasts.
CHEAP. x ΧΤΙΞ
Ver. 2: Ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς ᾿Ανανίας: The high priest Ananias. |
It is a question among some expositors whether this Ananias
be the same Ananias that Josephus mentions that was high
priest ; and I ask again, whether ἀρχιερεὺς in this place be
to be necessarily rendered high priest.
I. That Ananias, the high priest whom Josephus mentions»,
was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus the governor of Syria,
to render an account of his actions to Claudius Cvesar, and
that before Felix entered upon the procuratorship of Judea ;
but whether he ever returned to Jerusalem again is uncertain;
still more uncertain whether ever restored to his place of high
priest : and most uncertain of all whether he filled the chair
at that time when Paul pleaded his cause, which was some
years after Felix had been settled in the government, Acts
XXIV. 10.
II. About this time there was one Ananias, a man very
much celebrated indeed, but not the high priest, only the sagan
of the priests, concerning whom the Talmudic writers record
these passages: “ There were thirteen corban chests, thirteen
tables, thirteen adorations in the temple: but to them that
were of the house of Rabban Gamaliel 77227 Ὕ ΓΔ bw
CIID Ad and to those that were of the house of R. Ananias,
sagan of the priests, there were fourteen,” &e. “Δ. Ananias,
sagan of the priests, saith4,” &c. ‘“ Ananias, sagan of the
priests, was slain¢ in the time of the destruction (of Jeru-
salem), with Rabban Simeon the son of Gamalielf.” “ 2.
Ananias the sagan is said to be slain on the five-and-twen-
tieth day of the month Sivan, together with Rabban Simeon
Ben Gamaliel and R. Ismaels.”
If we cannot reconcile the Ananias in Josephus with this in
St. Luke, let Ananias the sagan be the Ananias mentioned
in this place, who may very well be called ἀρχιερεὺς, or high
8 English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 698. d Pesachin, c. i. hal. 6. et Misn.
b Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 5. [xx. v.2.] Hieros.
et De Bell. Jud. lib. 11. cap. 21. [Π|. e Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 736.
eval f 'Tsemach David.
¢ Shekalim, cap. vi. hal. 1. & Juchasin, fol. 57. 1.
136 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xxiii. 5.
priest, as may be evident from those titles given to Annas and
Caiaphas, Luke iii. 2. Nor doth any thing hinder but that
we may easily suppose that Ananias the sagan was in the pos-
session of his saganship at this very time.
Ver. 5: Οὐκ ἤδειν, ἀδελφοὶ, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀρχιερεύς" I wist not,
brethren, that he was the high priest.| 1. Suppose he might
not know that man to have been high priest, or the sagan,
(which is hardly probable,) yet he could not be ignorant, from
the rank he held and the seat he possessed, that he must be
at least one of the fathers of the Sanhedrim and rulers of the
people; and so in reviling him he transgressed that precept,
‘Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people,” as well
as if he had reviled the high priest.
If. It is very little to the credit of the apostle to think,
that when he said, “ God shall smite thee, thou whited wall,”
ὅσο, that he uttered it rashly and unadvisedly, or carried away
in a heat of passion and indignation, or that he did not know
whom he thus threatened, or what degree and office he held.
But he spoke it soberly, and as became an apostle, by the
authority and guidance of the Holy Ghost. Nor did he nor
had he any need to retract those words, or make apology for
his rashness; but they are of the very same tenor with the
rest that he uttered.
ΠῚ. If this Ananias was that sagan of the priest sthat
perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, as hath been already
said, I would conceive his death was foretold prophetically
by the apostle, rather than that he rashly poured out words
that he afterward retracted. Let me, therefore, paraphrase
upon the words before us: “I know it is not lawful to speak
evil of the ruler of the people ; nor would IT have said these
things to him which I have, if I had owned such a one; but
I did not own him so, for he is not worthy the name of a
high priest.”
[V. The president of the Sanhedrim at this time was
Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel: his father Gamaliel having
been dead about two or three years before. Paul knew Si-
meon, and Simeon very well knew him, having been fellow-
disciples, and both sat together at the feet of Gamaliel. Nor
indeed could he be ignorant of any of the rulers of the people,
if they were of any age, because he had been so long educated
Ch. xxiii. 5.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 137
and conversed in Jerusalem, So that it is very improbable
he should not know either Ananias the high priest, if he were
now present, or Ananias the sagan, or indeed any of the fathers
of the Sanhedrim, if they had any years upon their backs.
Indeed, not a few years had passed since he had left Jeru-
salem : but seeing formerly he had spent so many years there,
and had been of that degree and order that he was an officer
of the Sanhedrim, and had a patent from them, he could not
have so slippery and treacherous a memory but that upon his
return he could readily know and distinguish their faces and
persons. And whereas it is said in the verse immediately fol-
lowing, that “ Paul perceived that the one part were Saddu-
cees,” &e. if it should be asked, whence he came to distinguish
so well concerning their persons; it may be answered, that (if
he had no other ways to know them) he might understand that
by his former knowledge of them: he had known them from
the time that he himself had been a Pharisee, and conversed
among them. See chap. xxii. 5.
V. Forasmuch therefore as he saith, οὐκ ἤδειν, 7 wist not, I
do not see how it can argue so much an ignorance of his per-
son (with whom he might have had some former transactions
in obtaining that accursed commission against the followers
of Christ), but that it must relate to his affection rather than
his understanding. So that the sense is, “ I knew not that
there was any high priest at all;” or, “1 do not acknowledge
this person for such a one.” It was safer to inveigh against
the person than the office: but if he had said concerning the
very office, “1 do not know that there is any high priest at
all,” I question not but he had uttered his mind ; being well
assured that that high priesthood was now antiquated by the
death of our great High Priest Jesus.
For let us lay down this problem: Although the apostle, as
to other things, had owned the service of the temple (for he
was purified in it), yet as to the high priesthood he did not
own the peculiar ministry of that; doth it not carry truth
with it, seeing God by an irrefragable token, viz. the rending
of the veil of the temple from the top to the bottom, had
shewn the end and abolishing of that office?
But suppose the words of the apostle relate to the person
h English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 699.
138 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. xxiii. 8.
and not the office, and that they were spoken in reference to
the man himself; “1 do not own him ἀρχιερεὺς, high priest ;
he is not worthy of that title:” perhaps St. Paul knew of old
how wicked a person he had been; or from his present in-
justice or rash severity had reason enough to make such a
reply. To snow instead of to own and acknowledge is not un-
usual in Scripture style. That is a sad and dreadful instance
enough, “I know you not; depart from me, ye workers of
iniquity!” And in the Jewish writings, when R. Judah being
angry with Bar Kaphrah only said to him, “ I know thee not,”
he went away as 2 one rebuked, and took M5%) the rebuke
to himself. The story is this': “ When Bar Kaphrah came
to visit him, he said unto him, Oy JVI ON NIBP 7
‘O Bar Kaphrah, I never knew thee? Ue understood what he
meant: therefore he tock the rebuke unto himself for the
space of thirty days.”
Ver. 8*: Σαδδουκαῖοι μὲν yap λέγουσι μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν: The
Sadducees say that there is no resurrection.| What therefore
is the religion of a Sadducee? He prays; he fasts; he offers
sacrifice; he observes the law; and yet doth not expect a
resurrection or life eternal. To what end is this religion? It
is that he may obtain temporal good things, observing only
the promise of them made in the law, and he seeks for
nothing beyond the mere letter. That the Sadducees took
their denomination from one Sadoc, a disciple of Antigonus
Socheus, is commonly received, and that not without reason.
In the mean time it may not be amiss to inquire whether
Sadoc did himself deny the resurrection ; and whether he re-
jected all the books of the Holy Scripture excepting the five
books of Moses, which the Sadducees in some measure did.
I. The Jewish writers do relate his story with so much
variety, that, as some represent him, we might think he denied
the resurrection and future rewards; but, as others, that he
did not. For so say some!: “ Sadoe and Baithus were the
heads of the heretics ; for they erred concerning the words of
their master,” &e. “ Sadoe™ and Baithus hearing this pas-
sage from their master, ‘ Be ye not as servants that serve their
master for hire and reward’s sake; &e. they said among them-
' Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1. ! Juchasin, fol. 15. 2.
k Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 737. m™ Rambam in Avoth, cap. 1.
Tie
Ch. xxiii. 8.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 139
selyes, ‘Our master teaches us that there is neither reward
nor punishment,’ &c. Therefore they departed from the rule
and forsook the law,” &c. ἊΝ
Others" say otherwise ; “ Antigonus Socheus had two dis-
ciples, who delivered his doctrine to their disciples, and their
disciples again to their disciples; they stood forth and taught
after them and said, ‘ What did our fathers see that they
should say, It is possible for a labourer to perform all his
work for the whole day, and yet not receive his wages in the
evening? Surely if our fathers had thought there was another
world, and the resurrection of the dead. they would not have
said thus,” ἄς. ‘“ Antigonus Socheus® had two disciples :
their names? Sadoe and Baithus: he taught them, saying,
‘Be ye not as hirelings, that serve their masters only that
they may receive their pay, &ce. They went and taught this
to their disciples, and to the disciples of their disciples :
WIyD TAs sw but they did not expound his sense.”
[Mark that.] “There arose up after them that said, ‘ If our
fathers had known that there were a resurrection, and a re-
compense for the just in the world to come, they had not
said this.’ So they arose up and separated from the law, &c.
And from thence sprung those two evil sects, the Sadducees
and Baithuseans.” Let us but add that of Rambam, men-
tioned before; SND Wan ss “ Sadoe and Baithus did
not understand the sense of their master in those words, ‘ Be
ye not as servants who serve their master for the reward’s
sake,” &c.
From all which compared together, as we find the Jewish
writers varying from one another somewhat in relating this
story, so from the latter passages compared one would be-
lieve that Sadoe was not a Sadducee, nor Baithus a Baithu-
sean; that is, that neither of them was leavened with that
heresy that denied the resurrection, &e. There was an ocea-
sion taken from the words of Antigonus, misunderstood and
depraved, to raise such a heresy; but it was not by Sadoe or
Baithus ; for they “did not understand the sense of them,”
saith Rambam: and, as it appears out of the Aruch, they
propounded the naked words to their disciples without any
n Avoth R. Nathan, cap. 5. 9. Aruch im 7°D12.
P English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 700.
140 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xxiii. 8.
gloss at all upon them, and their disciples again to the dis-
ciples that followed them; so that the name, sect, and heresy
of the Sadducecs do not seem to have sprung up till the
second or third generation after Sadoc himself: which, if I
inistake not, is not unworthy our remark as to the story and
chronology. There was a time when I believed, (and who be-
lieves it not?) being led to it by the author of Juchasin and
Maimonides, that Sadoc himself was the first author of the
sect and heterodoxy of the Sadducees; but weighing a little
more strictly this matter from the allegations I have newly
made out of R. Nathan and Aruch, it seems to me more pro-
bable that that sect did not spring up till many years after
the death of Sadoc. Let us compare the times.
The Talmudists themselves own that story that Josephus
tells us of Jaddua, whom Alexander the Great met and wor-
shipped: but they alter the name, and say it was Simeon the
Just. Let those endeavour to reconcile Josephus with the
Talmudists about the person and the name, who believe any
thing of the story and thing itself; but let Simeon the Just
and Jaddua be one and the same person, as some would have
itd. So then the times of Simeon the Just and Alexander
the Great are coincident. Let Antigonus Socheus, who took
the chair after him, be contemporary with Ptolemeus Lagus.
Let Sadoe and Baithus, both his disciples, be of the same age
with Ptolemeus Philadelphus. And so the times of at least
one generation (if not a second) of the disciples of Sadoe may
have run out before the name of Sadducces took place.
If there be any truth or probability in these things, we shall
do well to consider them when we come to inquire upon what
reasons the Sadducces received not the rest of the books of
the sacred volume with the same authority they did those of
the five books of Moses. I ask therefore, first, whether this
was done before the Greek version was writ? You will hardly
say Antigonus, or indeed Sadoe his disciple, was touched with
this error. He would have been a monster of a president of
the Sanhedrim that should not acknowledge that distinction®
of the law, “ the prophets and holy writings.” And it would
be strange if Sadoe should from his master renounce all the
other books excepting the Pentateuch.
4 Vide Juchas. fol. 14. 1. ¥ Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 738.
Ch. xxii. 8.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 14]
The Sadducees might learn indeed from the scribes and
Pharisees themselves to give a greater share of honour to
the Pentateuch than the other books, for even they did so ;
but that they should reject them, so at least as not to read
them in their synagogues, there was some other thing that
must have moved them to it.
When I take notice of this passage’, that “ five of the
elders translated the law into Greek for Ptolemy ;” and that
in Josephus', that “the law only was translated ;” and both
these before so much as the name or sect of the Sadducees
was known in the world, I begin to suspect the Sadducees,
especially the Samaritans, might have drawn something from
this example: at least, if that be true that is related by
Aristeas; that he was under an anathema that should add
any thing to or alter any thing in that version. When the
Sadducees therefore would be separating into a sect, having
imbibed that heresy, that there is no resurrection, and wrested the
words of Antigonus into such a sense, it is less wonder if they
would admit of none but the books of Moses only; because
there was nothing plainly occurred in them that contradicted
their error: and further, because those ancients of great name
having rendered those five books only into Greek, seem to
have consigned no other for books of a divine stamp. 1 do
not at all think that all the Sadducees did follow that version,
but I suspect that the Samaritans took something from
thence into their own text. It is said by some, in defence
of the Greek version, that in many things it agrees with
the Hebrew text of the Samaritans", as if that text were
purer than our Hebrew, and that the Greek interpreters
followed that text. They do indeed agree often ; but if I should
say that the Samaritan text in those places, or in some of
them, hath followed the Greek version, and not the Greek
version the Samaritan text, I presume I should not be easily
confuted.
Shall I give you one or two agreements in the very begin-
ning of the Pentateuch ¢ In Gen. ii. 2 the Hebrew text is,
WAIwT DP. ΤῚΝ ΕΞ For God ended his work on the
‘seventh’ day: but the Greek hath it, Καὶ συνετέλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς
S Massech. Soph. cap. τ. t Antigq. lib.i. cap. 1. [Procm. 3.]
u English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 701.
142 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xxii. 8.
ev τῇ ἡμέρᾳ extn, God finished his work on the ‘sixth’ day. "The
Samaritan text agrees with this, ΓΤ Ὁ omy Soo
He finished his work on the ‘sith’ day, &c. You will say,
‘The Greek version translated according to the Samaritan
text.” I say, ‘The Samaritan text was framed according to
this Greek version.’ Who shall determine this matter be-
tween us? That which goes current amongst the Jews makes
for me; viz. that “this alteration was made by the LX XII*.”
But be it all one which followeth the other in this agree-
ment, we next produce, in the same chapter, Gen. 11. 19:
MINT TS orbs MM AZ The Lord God had formed out
of the ground. The Greek words are, Kai ἔπλασεν ὃ Θεὸς ἔτι ἐκ
τῆς γῆς, The Lord God formed as yet out of the ground. The
Samaritan text agrees, TOINT JD Dy OOS MT A,
We will not inquire here which follows which, but we rather
complain of the boldness of both; the one to add the word
ἔτι, and the other “YY, as yet; which seems to persuade us
that God, after he had created Adam and Eve, did over and
above create something anew; which to me is a thing as yet
unheard of: and to whom is it not $
Μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν" That there is no resurrection.| In my
notes upon Matth. iii. g I take notice of the Gloss upon
Beracothy (if he be of any credit), that there were heretics
even in the days of Ezra, who said that ‘ there is no world
but this -” which indeed falls in with Sadduceism, though the
name of Sadducee was not known then, nor a long time after.
But as to their heresy when they first sprung up, they seem
principally, and in the first place, to have denied the im-
mortality of the soul; and so, by consequence, the resurrec-
tion of the body.
I know that ONT NNN in the Jewish writers is taken
infinite times for the resurrection of the dead, but it is very
often taken also for the life of the dead; so as the one de-
notes the resurrection of the body, the other the immortality
of the soul.
In the beginning of the Talmudie chapter Helec, where
there is a discourse on purpose concerning the life of the
world to come, they collect several arguments to prove DMN
MNT yO Dwar the life of the dead out of the law ; for so
x Megill. fol.g.1. Massech. Sopher. cap. 1. y Babyl. fol. 54. 1.
Ch. xxiii. 8.1 Exercitations upon the Acts. 143
let me render it here rather than the resurrection of the dead.
And the reason of it we may judge from that one argument
which they bring2, instead of many others; viz. ‘‘Some do
say that it is proved out of this Scripture. He saith unto
them, ‘ But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God
oy 555 O° are alive every one of you this day, Deut.
ie 4. Gn) oobi ONT NEw) It is plain that you are
now alive, when Moses speaks these things; but he means
this, that in the day wherein all the world is dead ye shall
live :” that is, “ Ye also, though dead, shall live ;” which
rather speaks out the immortality of the soul after death
than the resurrection of the body. So our Saviour’s answer
to the Sadducees, Matt. xxi1. 31, 32, from those words, “1 81 ἃ
the God of Abraham,” Se. is fitted directly to confute their
opinion against the immortality of the soul ; but it little, either
plainly or directly, so proves the resurrection of the body, but
that the Sadducees might cavil at that way of proof.
And in that saying of the Sadducces themselves, concerning
the labourer working all the day and not receiving his wages
at night, there is a plain intimation that they especially con-
sidered of the state of the soul after death, and the non-re-
surrection of the body by consequence. Let the words there-
fore be taken in this sense; ‘“‘ The Sadducees say, ‘ Souls are
not immortal, and that there are neither angels nor spirits ;’”
and then the twofold branch which our sacred historian speaks
of will the more clearly appear when he saith, “‘ But the Pha-
risees confess both.”
It is doubtful from the words of Josephus» whether the
Essenes acknowledge the resurrection of the body, when in the
mean time they did most heartily own the immortality of the
soul: Καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἣδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἷναι
τὰ σώματα, καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτοῖς, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανά-
τους ἀεὶ διαμένειν: This opinion prevails amongst them, that the
body indeed is corruptible, and the matter of it doth not endure ;
but souls endure for ever immortal. So that the question chiefly
is concerned about the soul’s immortality.
Μηδὲ ἄγγελον μήτε πνεῦμα" Neither angel, nor spirvit’.| They
deny that the soul is immortal, and they deny any spirits, (in
z Sanhedr. fol. go. 2. b Bell Jud. lib. 11. c. 12. [Hud-
a T,eusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. son, p. 1064.] [1]. 8. 11.]
739- ο Bnglish folio edit., vol. i. p. 702.
144 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xxi. 8.
the mean time, perhaps, not denying God to be a spirit, and
that there is a Spirit of God mentioned Gen. i. 2.) And it is
a question whether they took not the occasion of their opinion
from that deep silence they observe in Moses concerning the
ereation of angels or spirits, or from something else.
There is frequent mention in him of the apparitions of
angels: and what ean the Sadducee say to this? Think you
the Samaritans were Sadducees? If so, it is very observable
that the Samaritan interpreter doth once and again render
the word OvTTS God, by mond angels. So Gen. ill. 5;
“Ye shall be as Elohim ;” Samar. —poshr sm Ye
shall be as ‘angels.’ Chap. v. 1; “Τὴ the similitude of God =”
Samar. TPINSD ΓΒΔ Ln the similitude of ‘ angels.” So
also chap. 1x. 6: ΡΟ by Nvwa Ln the sinilitude of " angels’
And wherever there is mention of angels in the Hebrew text,
the Samaritan text retains the word angels too.
Did not the Sadducees believe there were angels once, but
their very being was for ever vanished? that they vanished
with Moses, and were no more? Did they believe that the soul
of Moses was mortal, and perished with his body? and that
the angels died with him? Otherwise, I know not by what art
or wit they could evade what they meet with in the books of
Moses concerning azgels ; that especially in Gen. xxxil. 1.
You will say perhaps that by angels might be meant ‘ good
motions and affections of the mind.’ The Pharisees them-
selves do sometimes call ‘evil affections’ by the name of ‘devils:
OW PAT AL an evil affection is Satan. But they do not eall
‘good affections’ angels, nor can ye yourselves apply that pass-
age so; “ The angels of God met him, and he called the name
of that place Wahanaim ,᾽ i. e. two camps, or two hosts. One
of those camps consisted of the multitude of his own family :
and will you have the other to consist of ‘good affections ? ”
If the Sadducees should grant that ange/s were ever created
(Moses not mentioning their creation in his history), I should
think they acknowledged the being of enge/s in the same
sense that we do in the whole story of the Pentateuch ; but
that they conceived that after the history of the Pentateuch
was completed those angels were annihilated, and that after
Moses there was neither ange/, nor spirit, nor propheey.
I have in another place taken notice that the Jews eom-
ν᾿
Ch. xxiii. 8.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 145
monly distinguished between ‘ angels and spirits’ and “ devils.
Where by sprrits they understood either the ghosts of dead
persons or spirits in human shape, but not so dreadful and
terrible as the angels. And what need is there any more
(will the Sadducee say) either of angel or spirit, when God
before Moses died had made known his will by his writings,
had given his eternal law, completely constituted his church !
It is an innocent and blameless ignorance not to under-
stand τὰ βάθη τοῦ Σατανᾶ, the depths of Satan, and the secrets
of heretics ; and if in learning their doctrines we mistake, and
perhaps not a little, the shame is not much. It is venial to
err concerning them; to err with them is mortal. Let the
reader therefore pardon my ignorance, if I confess I am
wholly ignorant where lay the difference between the Sad-
ducee and Baithusean; whether they agreed in one, or
whether they disagreed in some things. The Holy Scrip-
tures make no mention of the Baithuseans; the Jewish
writings talk much of them, and in some things they seem
to be distinguished from the Sadducees; but in what it is
somewhat obscure.
We have the Sadducees disputing with the Pharisees; and
we have the Baithuseans disputing with a Pharisee®; and a
Baithusean interrogating something of R. Joshua‘; and fre-
quent mention of them up and down in the Jewish writings.
But particularly I cannot let pass one thing I have met withs,
“ Of old they received’ a testimony of the new moon from
any person whatsoever, D°]°37 sbpbopwn but after that the
‘heretics’ began to deal deceitfully,” &ec.; so the Jerusalem
Misna reads it. But the Babylonian, POW. abobown
After that the ‘Baithuseans’ began to deal deceitfully, or lightly.
And the Misna, published by itself at Amsterdam, hath it,
MD NPN rbpboun When the ‘ Epicureans’ dealt lightly,
&c. Where both the Gemaras tell us, “The Baithuseans en-
deavoured to lead the wise men into an error, and hired, for
the sum of four hundred zuzees, one of our own and one of
theirs, to give in a false testimony as to the new moons,” &c.
The Glosses give this reason of it: “ The thirtieth day of the
@ Jadaim, cap. 4. & Rosh hashanah, cap. 2. hal. 1.
© Menacoth, fol. 65. 1. h Leusden’s edit., vol. 11. p. 740.
* Schabb. fol. 108. 1.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. Ι,
146 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xxiii. 9.
month Adar fell upon a sabbath; and the new moon did not
appear in its time. And the Baithuseans were desirous that
the first day of the Passover should fall upon the sabbath,
that the sheaf-offering might fall upon the first day of the
week; and so the day of Pentecost upon the first day of the
week also.”
Who now should these Baithuseans be, Sadducees, or
Samaritans, or Christians, or some fourth sect? The Christ-
ians, indeed, would have the day of Pentecost on the first day
of the week ; but whether they mean them in this particular
let others judge. In other things otherwise. ‘ Whereforei
do they adjure the high priest ?” [viz. that he rightly perform
the service‘ of the day of expiation :] ‘“ Because of the Bai-
thuseans, who say, ‘ Let him burn incense without, and bring
it within. There is a story of a certain person that burnt
incense without and brought it within .... Concerning whom
one said, I should wonder if he should live very long. They
say that he died ina very little time after.” You would believe
this was a high priest and a Baithusean.
Ver. g: Γραμματεῖς τοῦ μέρους τῶν Φαρισαίων: The scribes that
were of the Pharisces’ part.| For there were also “ scribes of
the Sadducees’ part :” and on both parts the γραμματεῖς,
scribes, must not be distinguished either from the Pharisees
or from the Sadducees that were now present in the San-
hedrim: but the meaning is, the scribes that were of the sect
or profession of the Sadducees, or of the Pharisees; and by
this twofold division the whole Sanhedrim is to be understood.
But if we would take the thing more strictly, there were in
the Sanhedrim some scribes who took the part of the Phari-
sees against the Sadducees who yet were not of the sect of
the Pharisees. I should believe the Shammeans and Hillel-
ites were all against the Sadducees; and yet I should hardly
believe all of them of the sect of the Pharisees. We find them
frequently disputing and quarrelling one against the other in
the Talmudic writings; and yet I do not think that either the
one or the other favoured the Sadducee, nor that all of them
bore good-will to Pharisaism. There is a bloody fight between
them mentioned!; ‘The Shammeans” (who at that time were
i Hieros. Joma, fol. 39.1. k English folio edit., vol. 11. p. 703.
1 Hieros. Schabb. fol. 3. 3.
Ch. xxviil. 1. | Exercitations upon the Acts. 147
the greatest number) “stood below, and killed some of the
Hilelites.” This was done in the house of Hananiah Ben
Hezekiah Ben Garon, whom they came to visit, being sick.
A friendly visit this indeed !
Ver. 11: Οὕτω ce δεῖ καὶ εἰς Ρώμην μαρτυρῆσαι: So must thou
bear witness also at Rome.] Hence the warrant and intimation
given to St. Paul of appealing to Czesar. It was a rare thing
for a Jew to appeal to any heathenish tribunal; and it sa-
voured of venomous malice the Sanhedrim had against Jesus,
that they delivered him over to a heathen judge. St. Paul,
therefore, when he found no place or manner of escaping
otherwise, was directed by this vision what to do.
Ver. 12: Μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πιεῖν, &c. Neither eat nor
drink, &c.| What will become of these anathematized per-
sons if their curse should be upon them, and they cannot
reach to murder Paul? (as indeed it happened they could
not:) must not these wretches helplessly die with hunger ?
Alas! they need not be very solicitous about that matter ;
they have their casuist-Rabbins that can easily release them
of that vowm: wot Ὁ Sot on 227 yo aw InN
21D" “ He that hath made a vow not to eat any thing, woe to
him of he eat; and woe to him if he do not eat. If he eat, he
sinneth against his vow; if he do not eat, he sinneth against
his life. What must such a man do in this sense? Sus pas
at mb wenn oo Let him go to the wise men, and
they will loose his vow; according as it is written, ‘The tongue
of the wise is health,’” Prov. xii.18. [Ὁ is no wonder if they
were prodigal and monstrous in their vows, when they could
be so easily absolved.
CHAP. XXVIII.
Ver.t: Μελίτη: Melta.] Pliny tells us°, that in the Sici-
lian sea ““ Insulee sunt in Africam versze, Gauros, Melita,” &e.;
‘there are islands towards Africa, Gauros, Aelita, from Ca-
merina eighty-four miles, from Lilybeeum a hundred and
thirteen.’ Ptolemy reckons it amongst the maritime islands
of Africa: for thus he distinguisheth ; Νῆσοι τῇ ᾿Αφρικῇ παρα-
κείμεναι πλησίον τῆς γῆς, islands adjacent to Afric, near the land.
m Hieros. Avodah Zarah, fol. 40.1. © Haglish folio edit., vol. ii. p. 704.
° Nat. Hist. lib. i. cap. 8.
L 2
148 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xxviii. 2.
And νῆσοι πελάγιαι τῆς ᾿Αφρικῆς, the maritime islands of Afric.
Amongst these latter we find the island Melita, in which was
the city :—
Melita 20. 45: 24: 40:
Chersonesus 38. 40. 34. 45.
Juno’s Temple 39. 34. 40.
Hercules’ Temple 38.45. 36. 6.
Πρόκειται δὲ τοῦ Παχύνου Μελίτη», &e. “ Before Pachynus lieth
Melita4, and Gaudus” (Pliny ealleth it Gauros) “ eighty-three
miles from both” (i.e. Sicily and Pachynus), “ both being dis-
tant eighty-eight miles:” where the Latin interpreter saith
Jurlongs, making a very vast defect in the measure. Whereas,
therefore, according to the same Strabo’, the distance between
Carthage and Lilybzeum of Sicily was χιλίων καὶ πεντακοσίων
σταδίων, one thousand five hundred furlongs, or near two hun-
dred miles, and Melita from Lilybeeum one hundred and thir-
teen miles, it is evident that island was situated almost in the
middle between the Sicilian and the African shore, anciently
under the jurisdiction of Carthage: and from them perhaps
took the name of Melita, which in their language signifies
evasion or escape from 7%, to escape, from the mariners that
sail out of Africa, escaping the danger of the Syrtes. It was
certainly an escape to Paul and the rest that were shipwrecked
with him in this place.
Ver. 2: Οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι, Χο. And the barbarous people, &c.
Col. iii. 11: Ἕλλην, BapBapos, Σκύθης" Greek, Barbarian, Scy-
thian.| I. The Gentiles were called by the Jews D021 “EA-
Anves, Greeks ; partly because the Greeks excelled all other
nations in language and learning; partly because the Jews
had so long lain under the empire of the Greeks, the Ptole-
mies on one side, and the Seleucide on the other. From
whence, 1. FIV MOM the wisdom of the Greeks is commonly
taken by the Rabbins for all kind of Gentile learning, where-
in the Grecians peculiarly excelled. Hence that passage’ ;
ow cdma sm mp Sy mp The beauty of Japheth shall
be in the tabernacles of Sem. The Gloss is, “ This is the Greek
tongue, which is more elegant than any language of the chil-
P Strab. vi. [2.] r xvii. [3.]
4 Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 741. 5. Megillah, fol. 9. 2.
Ch. xxvill.2.] Exercitations upon the Acts. 149
dren of Japheth.” And Aruch in JH; MAMA JY ΓΒ
The Greck way of writing is most elegant. And hence is
it, 2. That the Jews, even while they were under the Roman
yoke, counted their years by the epocha or era of the Greeks,
that is, the Seleucid. Whence that cavil of the Sadducee ;
_ “A certain Sadducee said, ‘I rebuke you, Ὁ ye Pharisees,
because you write the emperor with Mosest.” The Gloss is,
“In writings of contracts, they write the years of the kings,
and this also, bys) mw MID WT and this also ws ac-
cording to the law of Moses and Israel ;” viz. that they might
reckon according to the years of the Seleucidee. See Josephus
and the book of Maccabees.
II. After the same manner that the Jews called all Gentiles
Greeks, so the Greeks called all other nations but their own
barbarians. Strabo largely discusseth the reason of that
name, and him the reader may consult. Perhaps the ety-
mology of the word may have some relation with 1 dar, a
Chaldee word, which signifies wthout. Whence 93 a stranger,
or one of another country, in the Samaritan version is 5872
a foreigner ; so that "872 72 the word being doubled de-
notes a great foreigner®. But to let etymologies pass, I take
notice that the Syriac in that place of the Colossians before
quoted, instead of Ἕλλην, Greek, hath SON ; for BapBapos,
barbarian, hath S87 Greek, (which is chiefly to be taken
notice of,) and for Σκύθης, Scythian, SANA. Whence
thesey inhabitants of Melita should be termed βάρβαροι,
barbarous people, is something obscure; when doubtless the
island itself was under the Roman jurisdiction, which the
very name Publius, who was the chief of this island, does
make out. However, the inhabitants seem to be Africans,
brought over thither by the Carthaginians when they had
possession of that island. For I hardly think St. Luke would
6811 the Romans Jarbarians when they were so very cultivated
a nation, and all people were ambitious of the name of a
Roman, St. Paul himself having obtained it. The people of
Melita, perhaps, were transplanted out of Barbary itself, as
that part of Africa at length was called.
«The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ον
t Jadaim, c. 4. hal. 8. ἃ xiv. [2.] x [valde extraneus. |
y English folio edtt., vol. i. p. 705.
150 Hebrew and Talmudical {Ch. xxviii. 4, &e.
NID WD WAST NID WAIN These are the men of Barbary,
and the men of Mauritania, that walk naked in the streets.
Nor is there any thing more loathsome and execrable before
God than he that goes naked in the streetsy.”
Ver. 4: Ἢ δίκη Giv οὐκ εἴασεν: Vengeance suffereth not to
live.| That of the Jewish writers is not much unlike this:
“ Although the Sanhedrim is ceased, yet are not the four
deaths ceased. For he that deserves stoning either falls from
his house, or a wild beast tears and devours him. He that
deserves burning either falls into the fire or a serpent bites
him. He that deserves cutting off with the sword is either
betrayed into the power of a heathen kingdom or the robbers
break in upon him. He that deserves strangling is either
suffocated in the waters or dies by a squinaney.”
Ver. 5: ᾿Αποτινάξας τὸ θηρίον εἰς τὸ πῦρ, ἄς. He shook off
the beast into the fire.| The first miraculous sign recorded in
the Holy Scriptures is about a serpent, Exod. iv: and so is
this last, for they may both be reckoned amongst mere signs.
Ver. 10: Οἱ καὶ πολλαῖς τιμαῖς ἐτίμησαν ἡμᾶς" Who also ho-
noured us with many honours.) That is, ‘bestowed many gifts
upon us:’ “ Manoah? said to the angel of the Lord, What is
thy name, that when thy words shall come to pass WIT) we
may do thee honour ? that is, {JW qb} ND) we may give thee
a gift: nor is WIAD) any other ie We may do thee
honour with some gift. According as it is said, 1228 ἽΞΙΞ
In honouring I will honour thee,” Num. xxii.16. Sot Tim. ν. 2.
“ς Honour widows that are widows indeed.”
Ver. 11: Παρασήμῳ Διοσκούροις: Whose sign was Castor
and Pollux.| Gemini in the zodiac, commonly pictured sitting
upon horses. And so they appeared (if we will believe the
historian) in that fight at the lake Regillus, leading on the
Roman horse, and so pressing upon the enemy, that under
their conduct the victory was obtained*. But another time
the pseudo-Castores, false Castor and Pollux, appeared not so
fortunately 4: Λακεδαιμονίων ἐπὶ στρατοπέδου Διοσκούροις ἑορτὴν
ἀγόντων, &e. ‘ While the Lacedeemonians were celebrating
y Jevamoth, fol. 63. 2. Ὁ Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 742.
z Sanhedr. fol. 37. 2. Bemid. Rab. © Dionys. vi. [47.]
fol. 259. 2 ἃ Pausanias in Messeniacis, ly.
a Bemidh, Rab. ΠῚ} 239.3 [27
Ch. xxviii. 11.] Hxercitations upon the Acts. 151
the feast of Castor and Pollue within their camp, and had
given themselves to sports and drinking, after dinner Gonip-
pus and Panormus” [two Messenian young men that were
wont to waste the Lacedsmonians] ‘“ of a sudden appear
amongst these Lacedzmonians, clothed in white tunics and
purple cloaks, mounted on beautiful horses. The Lacede-
monians beholding them, and supposing them no other than
Castor and Pollux, and that they were come to their own fes-
tivals, worship them, and make their prayers to them. But
the young men, as soon as they found themselves received in
the midst of them, break through them making slaughter
everywhere with their lances; and so a great number being
slain they return safe to Audania, casting a reproach upon the
feast of Castor and Pollux.”
From the habit of these pseudo-Castores, false Castor and
Pollux, it is easy conjecturing in what form they were wont
to be pictured, who in the judgment of the deceived people
were the true ones. Comely young men, in comely apparel,
and riding on horseback ; and yet they are sometimes drawn
on foot, as in that obscure passage in the same Pausanias*‘,
To δὲ ἱερὸν τῶν Διοσκούρων ἐστὶν ἀρχαῖον, αὐτοί τε ἐστῶτες,
καὶ οἱ παῖδες καθήμενοι σφίσιν ἐφ᾽ ἵππων ; where the Latin inter-
preter renders it, ‘The temple of Castor and Pollux is very
ancient‘, where young men are beheld sitting on horseback.”
But the words of the author are plainly to this purpose, that
“ Castor and Pollux are drawn standing, and their boys on
horseback.” There is something parallel in another place of
this author that gives some light in this matters: Mera δὲ
ταῦτα Διοσκούρων ναός" ΓΑγαλμα δὲ αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ παῖδές εἶσιν,
Αναξις καὶ Μνασίνους, σύν τε σφίσιν al μητέρες ἱΙλάρεια καὶ
Φοίβη, ete. After this rs the temple of Castor and Pollux.
They are pictured themselves, and their two sons, Anaxis and
Mnasinous, and together with them their mothers, Hilaria and
Phoebe, done by the skill of Dipeenus and Scyllis in ebony wood :
the greater part even of the horses being made of ebony ; the rest,
though very little, of iwory.
It was believed they were propitious deities to mariners ;
and therefore does the centurion, having been so lately ship-
e Pausan. in Atticis, [xvili.18.] £ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 706.
& In Corinthiacis, 11. [22.]
152 Hebrew and Talmudical = (Ch. xxviii. 13.
wrecked, so much the rather commit himself to a ship that
earried that sign. And what doth St. Paul say to such a
superstition ? He knew he had the convoy and protection of a
better Deity, nor is it improbable but that the centurion had
imbibed something of Christianity himself; and it would be
strange if some of the soldiers by so long society with St. Paul
had not also. But it seems there was no other ship ready, at
least no other that was bound for Italy.
Ver. 13: Ἤλθομεν εἰς Ποτιόλους: We came to Puteoli.]
Πόλις ἐμπορεῖον γεγένηται μέγιστον, χειροποιήτους ἔχουσα ὅρμους"
It is a city, a very great mart town, where there are havens for
ships made by art and labour. Whence it is less wonder if
now there were Christians there, either such as were mer-
chants themselves, or such as were instructed in Christianity
by merchants trading there.
The Jewish writers make some mention of this place with
this storyi: ‘“ Rabban Gamaliel, and R. Eliezer Ben Azariah,
and R. Joshua, and R. Akiba, "95 POI ἦλθον εἰς τὴν
Ρώμην, went to Rome, [i. e. made a voyage to Rome, as in this
chap. ver. 14, ἤλθομεν els τὴν “Ρώμην, we went towards Rome :]
“prdoebunpn on bw mann Sap aynw and they heard
the sound of the multitude at Rome, being distant a hundred
and twenty miles. Therefore they began to weep, but R.
Akiba laughed. They say unto him, Ὁ Akiba, why shouldst
thou laugh while we weep! He saith unto them, And why
should you weep? They make answer, Have we not cause to
weep, when these Gentile idolaters worship their idols, and
yet remain prosperous and quiet, whiles in the mean time the
temple, the footstool of our God, is become a flame, and a
habitation for wild beasts? Have we not cause to weep? To
whom he answereth, For this very cause do I laugh; for if it
be so prosperous with those that provoke God to anger, how
much more shall it be so to those that do his will !”
‘This story is repeated elsewherek; and there, instead of
DI ΡΟΝ Putcolus, it is set WAH; and yet the Gloss
upon the place, quoted out of Hchah Rabbathi, tells us, that
“in the third chapter of the treatise Maccoth, it is written
pibyan.”
h Strabo, v. [4.] ' Echah Rabbath. fol. 81. 2.
k Maccoth, fol. 24. 1.
Ch. xxviii. 15.] Hwercitations upon the Acts. 153
St. Paul and the rest abide at Puteoli seven days at the en-
treaty of the Christians of that place: which redounded to the
credit of the centurion, whose leave must be obtained in that
ease: so that his yielding so far may somewhat argue that he
favoured Christianity.
Ver.15: ᾿Εξῆλθον εἰς ἀπάντησιν ἡμῖν ἄχρις ᾿Αππίου Φόρου
καὶ Τριῶν TaBepvav' They came to mect us as far as Appii
forum and The three taverns.) ‘Via Appia’ and Appii forum
are much spoke of in authors; but the mention of The three
taverns is not so frequent. There is mention in Zosimus! of
Τρία καπηλεῖα, 1. 6. The three victualling-houses; where Severus
the emperor was strangled by the treason of Maximianus Her-
culius and Maxentius his son.
1 Zosim, lib. ii.
HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL
EXERCITATIONS
UPON
SOME FEW CHAPTERS
OF THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
CHAP. III.a
VER. 12: Πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, &e. They are all gone out of the
way, &c.| I. This with the following part of the quotation
is taken out of the fourteenth Psalm, according to the Greek
version ; being indeed added to the Hebrew context: which
is in truth a thing not unusual either to those interpreters
or the ordinary interpreters in the synagogues. We have
already observed elsewhere, that there stood by the reader of
the Law and the Prophets in the synagogues an interpreter,
that was wont to render what was read to the people in the
Hebrew into their own language, and that it was a very
usual thing for those interpreters to expatiate, and, by way of
comment, to preach upon the words that had been read.
Concerning which I have given some instances; a thing also
observable enough in the Chaldee paraphrasts.
IJ. That the Greek interpreters did the same thing upon
this Psalm I do not question; indeed the thing speaks itself ;
especially if we take notice of the subject which is discoursed
of there. but let this be taken notice of by the way, that
wherever any thing occurs in the Holy Scripture that is either
terrifying or disgraceful or threatening the Jews commonly
a Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 875.—English folio edit., vol. il. p. 707.
156 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. iii. 12.
apply it to the Gentiles, as by numberless instances might be
confirmed. These interpreters, therefore, having gotten such
a subject in this Psalm, and according to the custom of the
nation applying it to the Gentiles; they heap together pass-
ages from other places of the Scripture, which they either
believe or would have to look the same way, loading and
stigmatizing the poor heathen with odious characters enough;
for to them the Jews make no doubt, but assuredly believe,
all those things do appertain.
III. Our apostle follows their quotations exactly, tran-
scribes their words, approves the truth of the thing, but dis-
proves the falsehood of the application, ver.19: q.d. “ You
Jews expound these things of the Gentiles only, as if they
did not in the least belong to yourselves. And with the
same design likewise have your interpreters multiplied this
heap of quotations, having their eye on them: but ye must
know that whatever things the law saith, it saith to them
who are under the law.”
CHA Pay ΠΕ
Ver. 19: Ἡ yap ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως" For the earnest
expectation of the creature, §c.| There is a twofold key hang-
ing at this place that may unlock the whole, and make the
sense plain and easy.
I. The first is this phrase πᾶσα κτίσις, which we render the
whole creation, ver. 22; and we meet with it twice elsewhere
in the New Testament, Mark xvi. 15, Κηρύξατεῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει Preach the gospel to every creature. Col. 1. 23,
Εὐαγγελίου τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει" The gospel which was
preached to every creature. Now it is apparent enough what
is meant by πᾶσα κτίσις in both these places, viz. all nations,
or the heathen world. For that which in St. Mark is κηρύξατε
εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, preach the gospel to every creature, in
St. Matthew is μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, go and teach all
nations. ‘The very phrase in this place lays claim to that
very interpretation. I have also observed upon that place of
St. Mark, that that phrase N37 65 which signifies the
sane with πᾶσα κτίσις, every creature, is applied by the Jews to
the Gentiles, and that by way of opposition to Israel.
Ὁ English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 708.
Ch. vill. 20.] Hwercitations upon the Romans. 157
2. The second is, that word ματαιότητι, ver. 20, which indeed
is not unfitly rendered vanity: but then this vanity is impro-
perly applied to this vanishing, changeable, dying state of the
creation®. For ματαιότης, vanity, doth not so much denote
the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it doth the
inward vanity and emptiness of the mind. So the apostle,
speaking of the Gentiles, (concerning whom he speaks here,)
tells us, ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν: They became
vain in their imaginations’, And again, ἔθνη περιπατεῖ ἐν
ματαιότητι τοῦ voos αὐτῶν The Gentiles walk in the vanity of
their mind®. So also, “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of
the wise, ὅτι εἰσὶ μάταιοι, that they are vain’? To all which
let me add this observation further, that throughout this
whole place the apostle seemeth to allude to the Israelites’
bondage in Egypt, and their deliverance out of it, with a
comparison made betwixt the Jewish and the Gentile church.
When God would deliver Israel from his bondage, he chal-
lengeth him for his son and his firstborn, Exod. iv. 22. And
in like manner the people of the Gentiles do earnestly expect
and wait for such a kind of manifestation of the sons of God
within and among themselves. The Romans, to whom this
apostle writes, knew well enough how many and how great
predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his
prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to
himself among the Gentiles: the manifestation and production
of which sons, the whole Gentile world doth now wait for, as
it were, with an outstretched neck.
Ver. 20: Τῇ yap ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη, &e. Kor the
creature was made subject to vanity.) The Gentile world were
subject to vanity of mind; but how? οὐχ ἑκοῦσα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν
ὑποτάξαντα, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath sub-
jected the same. May we not say, ἐματαιώθη ἑκοῦσα, it became
vain willingly, but ὑπετάγη ματαιότητι οὐχ ἑκοῦσα, it was made
subject to vanity not willingly? For let us recur to the very
first original of Gentilism, that is, to the first confusion of
languages, by reason of the attempt to build the tower at
Babel. I confess there are some passages in the Gloss of the
Targumists upon this matter, (Gen. xi.) that might move
© Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 876. e Ephes. iv. 17.
4 Rom. i. 21. f 1 Cor. 111. 20.
158 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. vill. 21.
laughter ; but as to the sum and scope of the thing, they are
worth weighing :
“Theys said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower,
and let its head reach unto the top of heaven, b TAY
MUNI VIO MSD WI, and let us make us a house of wor-
ship in the top of it, and let us put a sword into*his hand, that
he may wage war for us against our enemies, before we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’ We
may smile, indeed, at that figment about the idol and the
sword, &e. But certainly they do not altogether miss the
mark, when they hint to us that this tower was built upon an
idolatrous account. So the Talmudistsh; ‘“ It is a tradition.
R. Nathan saith, 2) yy ows noi They were all intent
upon idolatry.’ And hence it is that they commonly say
that “that generation hath no part in the world to come.”
Nor indeed does the severity of the punishment, (viz. the
confusion of languages, by which true religion was lost in the
world,) argue any less but that they sinned against God in
the highest degree in that wicked enterprise. They were in-
clinable to idolatry willingly and of their own accord; but
that they were subjected to that vanity proceeded from the
Just indignation and vengeance of God. The whole world lay
under heathenism from the first confusion of languages to the
bringing in of the gospel among all nations, two thousand
years and upwards: and in this its most miserable condition
who could not but observe that God was angry ?
Ver. 21: ᾿ξλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς" Shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption ἢ The word φθορὰ
sometimes, yea very frequently in the Holy Seriptures, denotes
sinful corruption; so 2 Pet. 1.4, φθορὰ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ, corruption
through lust: 2 Cor. x1. 31, φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν, your minds
should be corrupted: τ Cor. xv. 33, φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρῆσθ᾽ ὁμι-
Ala κακαί, evil communications corrupt good manners, &e. So
that the sense of the apostle in this place seemeth to be this:
«The Gentile world shall in time be delivered from the bondage
of their sinful corruption, that is, the bondage of their lusts
and vile affections, (under which it hath lain for so long a
time,) into a noble liberty, such as the sons of God enjoy.”
& 'Targ. Hieros. et Jonath. h Sandhedr. fol. 109. 1.
i English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 709.
Ch. xi.] Exercitations upon the Romans. 159
Ver. 22: Πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει, &e. The whole creation
groaneth together, §c.] If it be inquired how the Gentile world
groaned and travailed in pain, let them who expound this of
the fabric of the material world tell us how that groaneth
and travaileth. They must needs own it to be a borrowed
and allusive phrase. But in the sense which we have pitched
upon, the very literal construction may be admitted.
CA eX:
Berore we apply ourselves to the exposition of this chapter,
let me make these few inquiries :
-I. Whether the Jewish nation, as to the more general and
greater part of it, had not been rejected and blinded before
such time as our Saviour manifested himself in the flesh? I
know well enough that the casting off of that nation is com-
monly assigned to that horrid wickedness of theirs in mur-
dering the Lord Christ, and persecuting the gospel and his
apostles; a wickedness abundantly deserving their rejection
indeed: but were they not blinded and east off before? They
were γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, a generation of vipers, at the time
that the Baptist first appeared amongst them; and this bears
the same signification as ‘the seed of the serpent.’
Our Saviour preacheth to them in parables, “that they
might neither see, nor hear, nor be converted, nor their sins
be forgiven them,” Mark iv. 11, 12: whieh may give ground
of suspicion that that people were cast off, to whom Christ
preaches in such a form and manner of oratory on purpose
that “they should not be converted.”
Ifk they were Jews to whom St. Peter directs his First
Epistle, (as who indeed doth deny it’) then there is some
weight in those words, chap. 11. 10, ‘‘ Ye were in times past
not a people.”
II. Is it not very agreeable to reason and Scripture to sup-
pose that nation cast off for the entertainment they had
given to their fond and impious traditions? A reprobate
people certainly they were, whose religion had made void the
commandments of God: a reprobate nation, who in vain wor-
shipped God after the commandments of men, Matt. xv; and
by such commandments of men which had leavened, yea, poi-
k Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 877.
160 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 1.
soned their minds with blasphemy and hatred against the
true Messiah and the pure truth of God, Isa. xxix. 13:
“ Because the fear of this people towards me is taught by the
precept of men, therefore the wisdom of their wise men shall
perish,” &e. May we not from this original derive the first
original of the rejection of this people? And by how much the
more they are bewitched with the love of their traditions, by
so much the more we may suppose them separated from God,
hardened, and cast off: so that the apostle seems to look
back to times before the murdering of our Lord, when he is
discoursing about the casting off of that nation.
III. Was not the gospel brought unto and_ published
amongst the ten tribes as well as amongst the Jews when
the apostle wrote this Epistle? The determination of this
matter seems to conduce something towards the explaining
of this chapter, seeing ἐΓΕΘΗΡΌσΕΙ the whole chapter there
is no mention of the lene singly, but of Israel.
The gospel was to be preached to the whole world before
the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv. 14: and was it not
to the ten tribes as well as other nations? It makes for the
affirmative, that St. James directs his Epistle ταῖς δώδεκα
φυλαῖς, to those ten tribes, as well as the other two. But the
apostles wrote to none but to whom the gospel was now come.
Ver. 1!: Μὴ ἀπώσατο ὃ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ; Hath God cast
away his people?| We may observe what it is the apostle pro-
pounds to discourse, viz. not of the universal calling in of the
nation, but of the on-rejection of the whole nation: hath God
so rejected his people that he hath cast them away univer-
sally? μὴ γένοιτο, God forbid. For I myself am an Israelite,
and he hath not cast me away.
Ἔκ φυλῆς Beviaply: Of the tribe of Benjamin.| So Phil.
iii. 5: the jasper stone, upon which was inscribed the name
of Benjamin in the breastplate, was the first foundation in
the new Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 19: in memory (as it should
seem) of this Benjamite, the chief founder of the Gentile
church. ‘ The™ jasper of Benjamin fell one day out of the
breastplate and was lost. Dama Ben Nethinah having one like
it, they bargained with him to buy it for a hundred sae &e.
1 English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 7
τὰ Hieros. Peah, fol. 15. 3. et Wiadush. fol. 6o. 2.
Ch. x1. 2-4.) Eercitations upon the Romans. 161
Ver.2: ‘Qs ἐντυγχάνει’ How he maketh intercession, &c.]
Elijah" begs of God that he would take vengeance on the
Israelites for the wickednesses they had committed.
Ver. 3: Τὰ θυσιαστήριά cov κατέσκαψαν: They have digged
down thine altars.| Thine altars? What altars of God should
they be that the Israelites had thrown down in Samaria? The
altar in the Temple was whole at that time; and what altar
had God besides? R. Solomon upon 1 Kings xix. tells us,
“ These altars were private altars raised to the name of God.”
Such a one was that that “ Elijah repaired, being broken
down,” 1 Kings xviii. 30.
There were indeed ΓΞ high places built up to idols, but
there were some also built up to God. And that (as the
Jews grant) lawfully enough, before the Temple was built ;
which were used afterward: but the use of them became
faulty, because they were bound to go only to that altar that
was in the Temple. These altars were unlawfully built
amongst the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, because the
way lay open for them to the altar at Jerusalem ; but it was
not so unlawful for the ten tribes within the kingdom of Sa-
maria, because they could have no such access. It is ques-
tionable therefore, whether Elijah would call the high places
or altars in Judea, though dedicated to the true God, the
altars of God: which being so dedicated in Samaria, he calls
by the name of thine altars.
Ver. 4: Τῇ Bdad: To [the image of] Baal.) Those who
would have the Hebrew Bibles corrected by the Greek ver-
sion, and contend that those interpreters were inspired with
ἃ prophetic spirit, let them tell us here who it was that mis-
took? these interpreters, or St. Paul? For so they in 1 Kings
xix. 18; καὶ καταλείψεις ἐν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα
γόνατα ἃ οὐκ ὥκλασαν γόνυ τῷ Baad? And thou shalt leave in
Tsrael seven thousand men, all the knees which have not bowed the
knee τῷ Βάαλ, to Baal. So the Roman and Alexandrian edi-
tion. But the apostle, κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας,
οἵτινες οὐκ éxap av γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ: L have reserved te myself
seven thousand men, all that have not bowed the knee τῇ Βάαλ, to
Baal. To pass by the difference between καταλείψεις, thou
shalt leave, and κατέλιπον, I have left, or reserved, which is no
n Ley. Ger. in 1 Kings xix.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. M
162 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 4.
little one, we will only examine the difference between the two
articles τῷ and τῇ.
Ahab had introduced Baal, the idol of the Tyrians, amongst
the Israelites, 1 Kings xvi. 41. And were there but seven
thousand amongst the whole ten tribes of Israel that did not
worship this Baal? Perhaps there were seventy thousand :
nay, perhaps seven times seventy thousand. For consider the
story in 2 Kings x.21; and it will appear that the worship-
pers of this Baal were not so numerous that they could amount
to many thousands, perhaps not many hundreds.
But° what did it avail them not to have worshipped Ahab’s
Baal, if in the mean time they worshipped Jeroboam’s? calves?
Jehu himself, that rooted Baal and his worshippers out of
Israel, yet did not he depart from the sin of Jeroboam,
namely, the golden calves. And what great matter was there
in this divine answer (χρηματισμὸς) to Elijah, if it had said,
“T have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have
not worshipped τὸν Βάαλ, Baal,” the god of the Tyrians, if in
the mean time they worshipped the calves in common with
the rest of that nation? Elijah himself had slain these wor-
shippers of Baal before he had this answer from God; and
therein indeed had done a great act. But it was a small
matter if all Israel, excepting seven thousand only, should still
worship this Baal.
By τῇ Βάαλ therefore, with the feminine article, the apostle
teacheth us that it must be understood not τῇ εἰκόνι Baad, of
‘the image’ of Baal, but τῇ δαμάλει Baad, of “ the calf’ of Baal.
For all will confess that Baal was a common name for all idols.
And that which follows 1 Kings xix. 18, “‘ every mouth which
hath not kissed him,” takes light from that in Hos. xiil. 2,
‘“ Let them kiss the calves.”
Now Jeroboam’s calves are called δαμάλεις in the feminine
gender; 1 Kings xii. 28, ἐποίησε δύο δαμάλεις χρυσᾶς, he made
two calves of gold. So Josephus, Avo4 ποιήσας δαμάλεις χρυσᾶς,
τίθησι τὰς δαμάλεις, &e.; Jeroboam making two golden calves,
places them, &c. And instead of ‘more, the Book of Tobit
comments sufficiently upon τῇ Βάαλ, Tob. 1.5; καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ
φυλαὶ συναποστᾶσαι ἔθυον τῇ Βάαλ τῇ δαμάλει, and all the tribes
ο English folio edit., νο]. ii. p.711. 4 Antiq. lib. vil. cap. 8. [Hudson,
P Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p.878. Ρ. 364. 1. 45.] [viil. 8. 4.]
Ch. xi.5,8.] Ezxercitations upon the Romans. 163
that revolted together sacrificed to the calf Baal. To this sense,
therefore, the words of God to Elijah come: “1 have left, or
I have reserved, to myself, seven thousand men that have kept
themselves untouched with the common idolatry of the nation
in the adoration τῆς Βάαλ, [of Baal, or] of Jeroboam’s calf.”
Ver. 5: Οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ λεῖμμα, &e. Hven so
then at this present time also there is a remnant, &c.] However
we suppose the Jewish nation, as to the more general mass
of it, was cast off before the times of Christ ; yet no question
there was in all ages λεῖμμα κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος, ὦ remnant
according to the election of grace, and in that age more espe-
cially wherein Christ and his gospel began to shine out. And
that he meant the calling of this remnant in that age and time
wherein the apostle wrote, and not any call of the whole na-
tion to be hereafter, what can be more plainly said than what
is said in these words, ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ, at this present time ?
Let us take a view of the apostle’s reasoning: “ ‘ Hath God
cast away his people ’’ No; for I also am an Israelite, and
he hath not cast me off. And as in the days of Elijah there
was a remnant, even so it is ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ, at this very pre-
sent time.” How unfitly would this argue that the calling of
the nation was to be after a great many ages? But if we will
suppose that the Jews had, for the greatest part of them,
been east off, blinded, and hardened, before the times of
Christ and the apostle, then this reasoning will run easily
and smoothly: < Let it be granted that the nation, as to the
main body of it, was cast away for some ages past; yet is it
so cast away that there is no hope for any Jew? By no
means. For ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ, at this present time, there is a
remnant, as it was in the days of Elijah: I myself am one of
that remnant.”
Ver. 8: Ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, &e. God
hath given them the spirit of slumber, &c.| So the Greek in-
terpreters in Isa. xxix. 10; πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς Κύριος πνεύματι
κατανύξεως" The Lord hath made you drink in ὦ spirit κατανύ-
ξεως, of compunction. The difficulty lies in the word κατανύξεως,
which properly denotes remorse or compunction, very wide from
the meaning both of the prophet and apostle.
I. The Greek interpreters, what Jews soever they were, do
sometimes frame a sense of their own, and that not seldom,
M 2
164 Exercitations upon the Romans. [Ch. xi. ro.
very foreign from the Hebrew truth: and very often use
Greek words in a sense very different from the common idiom
of the Greeks. There might be instances given abundantly
both for the one and the other if this were a place for it.
II. This very word we have in hand they frame to their
own sense, different from the common acceptation of it. And
whether they take it from xaravirrw, to prick, or from κατα-
vuyéw, to grieve, or have any eye to the word νὺξ, night, they
attribute such a sense and signification to it as denotes
‘silence, astonishment, horror, &c. Gen. xxvii. 38, κατανυ-
χθέντος" δὲ ᾿Ισαὰκ, (a clause of their own inserting ;) we may
equally render it, Isaac being amazed and astonished, or grieved
and pricked with sorrow. Psalm Ix. 3; ἐπότισας ἡμᾶς οἶνον
κατανύξεως" Thou hast made us to drink of the wine of com-
punction. The Hebrew is, ΤΡ }0) the wine of horror. So
that the meaning of the word κατανύξεως in them must be
fetched from themselves ; and in this place, from the Hebrew
word nbynn in the propeeh rather than from any Greek
lexicon.
Ver. 10: Tov νῶτον αὐτῶν διαπαντὸς ctyxampov' Bow down
their back alway.| The apostle follows the Greek interpret-
ers, and they their own paraphrastic and allusive way. ‘The
Hebrew hath it, Ty Th Op sna make their loins to
quake continually. And so the Chaldee paraphrast renders it
too; but these, ‘ Bow down their back ;’ to which the Syriac
and Arabic incline. It is very true that they whose loins are
weak and feeble do go bowing and trembling; but perhaps
the interpreters might allude to that in Deut. xxv. 2, 3, where
the malefactor, condemned to be beaten with stripes, must be
bowed down. To which that passage in the Psalmist seems
to allude, Psalm i, “‘ The wicked shall not rise up, or stand in
judgment.” The Greek interpreters do frequently allude to
the customs, yea, not seldom to the traditions of their own
country ; whence one might the rather suspect an allusion in
this place also. Such a kind of version is that, (seeing we
are discoursing about scourging.) Prov. xxvii. 22; ἐὰν μαστι-
yots ἄφρονα ἐν μέσῳ συνεδρίῳ" if thou shouldst beat a fool with
stripes in the midst of the Sanhedrim ; instead of, “ Though
thou shouldst bray a fool in a mortar.”
τ English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 712.
HOR
HEBRAICHZ ET TALMUDICE;
OR,
HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL
EXERCITATIONS
UPON
THE FIRST EPISTLE
OF
ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.
ΤΟ WHICH IS ADDED,
A DISCOURSE
CONCERNING WHAT BIBLES WERE USED TO BE READ IN THE
RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES OF THE JEWS.
TO THE
RIGHT HONOURABLE AND LEARNED
SIR WILLIAM MORICE, ἵν.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE,
AND
ONE OF HIS MAJESTY’S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL®.
RigHt HoNOURABLE,
ALL that I have done in this work may well seem a continued
solecism : when 1 have with so unskilful a hand attempted to ex-
plain so abstruse an epistle, and handled things so difficult in so
brief a manner; and, lastly, in daring to dedicate these so unpolished
papers to a person of such judgment and learning. And what
account shall I give of these things ἢ
I know indeed that among those δυσνόητά twa, passages hard to be
understood, which are in St. Paul’s Epistles, [2 Pet. iii. 16,| this
First to the Corinthians claims no small share ; an Epistle behind
none for the variety of the things handled, and for the difficulty of
the style wherewith they are handled above all. Things these are
to be trembled at, but alluring withal, and provoking a mind greedy
of the knowledge of Holy Scriptures so much the more to the study
of them, by how much they are the more difficult. So that it was
neither arrogance nor rashness that I employed myself in these ob-
scurities ; but a studious mind, breathing after the knowledge of the
Scriptures, and something restless, when in difficult places it knew
not where to fix. What fruit I have reaped, I say not any thing of
but this, that I repent not of my pains: for I have in some measure
satisfied myself ; but whether I shall do others, is not in my power
a Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 880. English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 735.
168 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
to judge. I hope it will not give offence upon this account, that if
I mistake I mistake only in historical matters, (as most of those
things are that here create difficulty,) where there is no fear of dash-
ing upon the analogy of faith or the doctrine of the church.
That® I presume, Right Honourable, to lay these my rude thoughts
before your learned eyes, is not boldness, but duty, gratitude, and
obligation. I know well enough such is my meanness, that I am
not able to invent or frame any thing that may be worthy of that
great learning wherewith you are so signally endowed. But it is
your goodness, with which you are as much endowed, that I and
these my papers have to do with. They approach to pay their re-
spects to it, and to render you all the thanks that possibly I can for
that favour, assistance, and patronage that your Honour vouchsafed
to aid and comfort me with when I and my affairs lay under adver-
sity and hazard. You, great sir, came in to my succour ; and when
I was wholly a stranger to you, and you to me, yet you generously
afforded me your helping hand ; and that of your own accord, un-
agked, and with an earnest diligence, care, and affection. O, how
much am 1 indebted to that kindness of yours, and wherewith shall
I requite it? Let this issue of my studies, whatever it be, serve as a
monument of my vows; and having your great name inscribed upon
it, let it live and glory, and testify to all the world the obedience,
duty, and gratitude of,
Right Honourable,
Your most humble and most obliged servant,
JOHN LIGHTFOOT.
From Catharine Hall, Cambridge,
Commencement eve,
July 4, 1664.
Ὁ English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 736.
OF CORINTH ITSELF.
CoRINTH: was seated in an isthmus, by the space of five miles
parting the Aigean sea from the Ionian ; joining Greece to Pelo-
ponnesus by a strait passage.
In¢ the isthmus was the temple of Neptune ; and the Isthmian
games every five years, for this cause instituted, as is said, because
the coasts of Peloponnesus are washed with five bays. These plays,
broke off by Cypselus the tyrant, the Corinthians restored again to
their ancient solemnity in the forty-ninth Olympiad.
The bounds of the straits of the isthmus on this side are Lecheum,
and Cenchrez on the other. The haven of Cenchrez serves for the
traffic of Asia, that of Lechzum for the traffic of Italy. The haven of
Cenchree was distant from the city seventy furlongs. The Lechean
port lay under the city.
King Demetrius, the Dictator Cesar, Caius the prince [Caligula], and
Domitius Nero, endeavoured to cut through the straits with a navigable
canal, but unsuccessfully®. Corinth, from that high tower, which they
call Acrocorinthus, beholds both seas. Thatf city, heretofore called
Ephyra, was built by Sisyphus, in that time when Othniel was cap-
tain and judge of the Hebrews. Hence$ the tower Sisyphium at
Corinth, from the name of the founder. From} the coming down of
the Heraclide into Peloponnesus, the city was under kings for a long
series: then under yearly princes!; afterward under Cypselus, usurp-
ing the government ; and after him under Periander his son ; and
after a long space of time* under Philip. Whose endeavours the
Corinthians aided, and so despised the Romans for him, that some
presumed to cast dirt upon their ambassadors as they passed by their
houses. For which crime and other wicked deeds an army was sent
thither by the Romans, and Corinth overthrown by L. Mummius.
When! it had a long time lain forsaken, it was rebuilt by Julius
Cesar ; who built Carthage also at the same time ; and into both,
anciently splendid and famous cities, he brought down colonies of the
a English folio edition, vol. il. p. f Kuseb. in Chron.
737. Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 881. & Diod. Sicul. lib. xix.
> Pomp. Mela, lib. ii. cap. 3. h Kuseb. in the place before.
© Solin. cap. 13. i Herodot. lib. v. cap. 92.
4 Plin. lib.iv.cap.4. Strab. lib. viii.[6.] k Strab. in the place before.
© Mela, in the place before. 1 Dion Cass, lib. xliii.
170 OF CORINTH ITSELF.
Romans, especially of such as were Libertines [/reedmen]. They™,
when they had begun to remove the rubbish, and had withal digged
up graves, found very many works made of baked earth, and not a
few of brass; the workmanship of which they so admired, that there
was no sepulchre which they digged not up; and having got great
plenty of such things, they sold them at a great price, and filled
Rome ‘ Necrocorinthiis, with the spoils of the Corinthian dead; for
so they called those works which were taken from the sepulchres,
especially such as were made of earth. And when Mummius laid
the city waste, there were pictures found of admirable workmanship
which were brought to Rome. For the arts of painting and coun-
terfeiting, and other arts of that kind, were very much improved in
Corinth and Sicyon.
The® situation of the city, now rebuilt, was of this nature. There
was a high mountain, whose perpendicular was three furlongs and a
half ; the ascent thirty furlongs, and it ended in a sharp top. The
mountain’s name was Acrocorinthus. At the very foot of Acroco-
rinthus stood the city. The compass of the city made full forty fur-
longs: it was strengthened with a wall, as much of it as the moun-
tain had laid bare®: Acrocorinthus also was walled as far as it could
be fortified with wallingP. “ And as we went up (they4 are the words
of Strabo) the ruins of the old city appeared ; so that the whole
compass was eighty-five furlongs.”
The mountain on the top of it had the temple of Venus; a temple
so wealthy, ὥστε πλείους ἢ χιλίας ἱεροδούλους ἐκέκτητο ἑταίρας, that it
had more than a thousand whore-priests | famulas meretrices|, whom
men and women had dedicated to the goddess. Int the old city
heretofore stood the temple of Juno; where all the Corinthian
women being gathered together, Periander the tyrant, by his
officers, stripped them stark naked, without any difference; and
having carried their clothes into a certain pit, he burnt them to
Melissa his deceased wife ; with whom he lay after she was dead.
The history of the first founding a gospel-church in this city, Acts
xvill, makes it plain that there were very many Jews there, and one
synagogue of them at least, if not more.
™ Strab. in the place before. P Qua muro muniri poterat.
π΄ Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 882. a English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 738.
© [Quantum ejus mons denudaverat. | τ Herodot. lib. v. cap. 92.
HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL
EXERCITATIONS
UPON THE
FIRST EPISTLE
OF ST.PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.
CHAP. La
VER. 1: Παῦλος: αι. Who was also called ‘Saul.’ He
had a double name, according to his double relation: the
Hebrew name INW Saul, as he was a Hebrew; the Roman
name Paul, as a Roman.
It was common in the Jewish nation, that among the Jews
they went by a Jewish name; but among heathens by an-
other. That is, either by the same name turned into the
heathen language; as Tabitha to the Jews was Dorcas to
them that spake Greek; and Thomas to the Hebrews was
Didymus to the Greeks; and perhaps Silas to the Jews was
Tertius to the Romans, Rom. xvi. 22, from wibw Shalosh,
three ; and Jason was Secundus: compare Rom. xvi. 21 with
Acts xx.4. Or they went by some different name; as Herod
in Luke, Acts xii.i, is Agrippa in Josephus ; and John is also
Mark, Acts xii. 12.
Hence the Gloss upon Maimonides; “ Perhaps> he hath
two names, viz. a Jewish, and that whereby ΓΝ ἼΘΙ those
that are not Jews do call him.” And that passage, “ΤΠ ς
Israelites without the land of Israel have names like the
names of the Gentiles.” Yea, hearken to what they say in
a English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 739. > Gerushin, cap. 3.
—Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 883. ¢ Hieros. Gittin, fol. 43. 2.
172 Hebrew and Talmudical [ΟΣ 255.
the same tract4 concerning Jews dwelling even in the land
of Israele: ‘‘ Perhaps he hath two wives, one in Judea an-
other in Galilee. And perhaps he hath two names, one in
Judea another in Galilee. If he subscribes his name whereby
he goes in Judea, to put away her who is in Galilee, or the
name whereby he goes in Galilee, to put away her who is in
Judea, it is not a divorce.”
It is no wonder therefore if Saul, who was born out of the
land of Israel, and free of the city of Rome, had a Roman
name joined with his Jewish. And it deserves observation,
that he, being now made the apostle of the Gentiles, always
calls himself by his Gentile name, by his Jewish never: and
that Luke, prosecuting his Acts, calleth his name Saul while
the scene of the story is among the Jews, but Paul while it is
among the heathen.
Ver. 2: ᾿Ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: Sanctified in Christ
Jesus.| It seems to be opposed to τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις ἐν νόμῳ,
those that are sanctified in the law, or to respect that law,
Deut. xxii, 1, 2, ὅζο., concerning the excluding very many out
of the church of God: which is not so done under Christ.
Κλητοῖς ἁγίοις" Called saints.]| WIP S72 α holy convo-
cation, is so rendered in the language of the LX X interpreters,
Lev. xxill.2: ai ἑορταὶ Κυρίου, ἃς καλέσετε αὐτὰς κλητὰς ἁγίας"
The feasts of the Lord which ye shall call, called Holy. Ver. 3;
σαββάτα ἀνάπαυσις, κλητὴ ayia τῷ Κυρίῳ: The sabbath a rest.
called holy to the Lord. See also, ver. 4, 7, 8, &e.
Sanctified in Christ is a general word, which is subdivided
into κλητοὺς ἁγίους, truly saints, and ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομα
Κυρίου, those that call on the name of the Lord, saints by pro-
fession.
Ver. 5: Ἔν παντὶ λόγῳ, καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει: In ali utterance,
and in all knowledge.| That is, ‘in the gift of tongues, and
prophesying.’ These he calls in the verse following μαρτύριον
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the testimony of Christ; that is, the testimony
whereby Jesus is proved to be the true Messias, seeing he
bestowed‘ such gifts. So Rey. xix. 10, “The testimony of
Jesus is the spirit of prophecy ;” not only the doctrine which
the prophet uttered, but the very gift of prophesying. And
ἃ Fol. 45. 3. © English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 740.
f Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 884.
Ch.i.12.] Hzercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 173
1 John v. 8, “ The spirit, and the water, and the blood,”
yield a testimony of Christ on earth. ‘The spirit,’ or the
gift of prophecy; ‘the water,’ or baptism; and ‘the blood,’
or martyrdom. For seeing the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit did so abound, and such infinite multitudes flocked to
baptism in the name of Jesus, and very many for that name
endured martyrdom, it was an undoubted testimony that he
was the true Messias.
Ver. 12: ᾿Εγὼ μέν εἰμι Taddov, &e. I am of Paul, &c.]
To trace the original of this schism, we may have recourse
to the twofold division of this church into converted Jews
and Gentiles; which appears from their story, Acts xvii.
The Gentile part perhaps boasted the name of Paul and
Apollos; the Jewish, that of Cephas and Christ. But each
of them again was divided into two. Some of the Gentile
part reverenced Paul either alone, or certainly above all
others, as their father, their apostle, and the first that brought
in the gospel among them ; however, he preached plainly, in a
low style, and not according to human wisdom and art. But
some preferred Apollos before him, as a more profound,
more elegant, and more quaint doctor: see Acts xvill. 24.
Hence that large discourse of the apostle of this very manner
of preaching, from chap. i.17 to chap. iv. 6; where he saith,
that he transferred those things in a certain figure to himself
and Apollos.
᾿Εγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ: And I of Cephas.] We will not here dispute
whether Peter were ever at Corinth. For even they them-
selves who assert that he was sometime there yet deny him
ever to have been there before the breaking out of this schism.
Whence therefore came there to be a sect’ of hisname? You
will scarce be able to produce a more probable reason, than
that those of the circumcision embraced him who was the
minister of circumcision, rather than the minister of uncir-
cumcision. Let us take an example from Mark himself, the
son or disciple of Peter, 1 Pet. v.13. He being chosen by
Paul and Barnabas for their companion in their travel among
the Gentiles, on a sudden departed from them and returned
to Jerusalem, Acts xili.13. And why so? I should bring
this reason of it, which you may correct if it displease, namely,
& English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 741.
174 Hebrew and Talmudical [OboiT2,
that he, cleaving to Peter before, who was the minister of
the cireumcision, liked not what these ministers of the uncir-
cumcision did among the Gentiles ; but being better informed
afterward, returned again to Paul. So also these Corinthians,
and indeed all the Jews everywhere that were converted, too
much Judaizing as yet, how much more readily would they
give up their names to that famous minister of circumcision,
than to the minister or ministers of uncircumeision? But
why not to James or to John, who were as much ministers
of circumcision 2
I. Peter was the minister of circumcision without the land
of Israel, but James within; and it seemed more agreeable
to these Corinthian Jews that were seated without the land
of Israel, to choose to themselves the chief apostle without
the land, than him who was within it. But you will say,
John also was an apostle of circumcision without that land as
well as Meter; and he was nearer Corinth, dwelling in Asia,
than Peter who was in Chaldea. True indeed; but,
II. Peter was the minister among the circumcision of the
purest name, namely, the Hebrews, when John was among
the Hellenists: yea, among the Hebrews of the purest blood,
viz. the Babylonians: yea, among the circumcision taken in
the largest sense, viz. among the ten tribes, as well as among
the Jews. To which add,
III. That Peter in this outshone the two other apostles
of circumcision, that to him alone were committed ‘the keys
of the kingdom of heaven ;’ that is, that he should first open
the door, and bring in the gospel among the Gentiles. Taking
all these observations together, it is no wonder if these Co-
rinthian Jews, Judaizing in very many other things, as appears
from this Epistle, when they were minded to enrol themselves
under some apostle, it is no wonder, I say, if they would enrol
themselves under Peter, the apostle of circumcision, rather
than under Paul, the minister of the Gentiles ; under Peter,
an apostle out of the land, rather than under James, who was
not; under Peter, the apostle of the purest Hebrews, and of
circumcision in the fullest name, than under John the apostle
of the Hellenists.
Yea, it is no wonder if the Christian Gentiles, whether
Corinthians or believers of some other places, when they
Ch.i. 14, 17.| Hxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 175
would enrol themselves under some peculiar apostle, it is no
wonder, I say, if they had regard to Peter, who first brought
in the gospel among the Gentiles, rather than any other who
brought in the gospel into this or that peculiar place. So
that opinion of the primacy of Peter seems to have arisen
among the Jewish Christians, for their particular difference
of his ministry among the circumcision ; and among the Gen-
tile Christians, for his bringing in of the gospel among the
Gentiles.
᾿Εγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ: And I of Christ.) If there were any
among the Corinthians who had been baptized by the baptism
of John only, as there were among the Ephesians, Acts xix. 4,
no wonder if they said, ᾿Εγὼ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, I am of the Messias,
not knowing as yet Jesus of Nazareth to be him. But be it
granted that all were better taught by Paul or Apollos, when
yet very many still inclined to Judaism, one may suspect that
they said, 7 am of Christ, or Messias, in that sense as we for-
merly) were instructed of the Messias; namely, that every one
should be enrolled and subjected under him only as our Cap-
tain, not under any deputed by him, or supplying his place.
Ver. 14: Kplonov Crispus.| The name Crispus is also in
use among the Talmudists. “ R. Aibulari saith, ‘Dp “23
Nigri Orispi.” pO") Ὃ WAN RK. Crispus* saith.
Γάϊον!" Gaius.| If that Gaius or Caius, to which the
Third Epistle of John is writ, were the Corinthian Gaius,
which is very probable, comparing Rom. xvi. 23 with the
seventh verse of that Epistle; then John seems to have written
his First Epistle to the Corinthians. “I write (saith he) to
the church :” to what church? Certainly to some particular
church, and where Gaius himself resided. But what Epistle
is that which he writ ? Who would not more fitly say, that it
was the first of his Epistles, than that that which he writ was
lost? And if these things are true, you may look for Diotre-
phes in the chureh of Corinth, the ringleader in the schism.
But these things under correction.
Ver. 17: Οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέ με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν: For Christ
sent me not to baptize.| Paul was not appointed a baptist among
the Gentiles, as John was a baptist among the Jews; nor
B Leusden’s edit., vol.ii. p. 885. k Tb. fol. 12. 2.
? Hieros. Jevamoth, fol. 2. 3. 1 English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 742.
te
176 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. i. 20, 21.
was the office of the one and the other alike. The Jews,
even from their cradles, were instructed in the doctrine of the
Messias, and in the articles of religion, so that John had no
need to spend much pains to prepare them for baptism in the
name of the Messias now to come, and for the reception of
the faith of the gospel. But how much pains must Paul take
among the Gentiles, who had not so much as ever heard
either of Christ or of the true God? He preached therefore
daily, and, as it were, drop by drop instils into them the doc-
trine of religion ; and it was no small labour leisurely to lead
them to a baptizable measure of knowledge, if I may have
leave so to express it. He baptized Gaius, Crispus, Ste-
phanas, that were Jews, who were presently and with little
labour instructed in the doctrine of the gospel; but others,
who did ripen more slowly to the knowledge of it, he com-
mitted to other ministers, to be baptized when they should
find them fitted for it.
Ver. 20: Ποῦ σοφός; ποῦ γραμματεύς ; ποῦ συζητητής ; Where
is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer 9]
“God™ showed to Adam,
SPWMT WI AW) Lvery generation καὶ συζητητὰς αὐτῆς,
and the disputers of it.
2POITM WI WI Lvery generation καὶ σοφοὺς αὐτῆς, and
the wise men of it.
SPAIDI WT WI Leery generation καὶ γραμματεῖς αὐτῆς,
and the scribes of tt.
SPIVAD BWI AT Heery generation καὶ ἡγουμένους αὐτῆς
and the governors of it.’ These words are recited with some
variation elsewhere”.
Σοφὸς, ODN, a wise man, who taught others. Γραμματεὺς,
"DID, @ scribe, any learned man, as distinguished from the
common people, and especially any Father of the Traditions.
Συζητητὴς, ΠΥ or PWIA: a disputer, or propounder of ques-
tions; he that preached and interpreted the Law more pro-
foundly.
Ver. 21: Ἔν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος διὰ τῆς
σοφίας τὸν Θεόν: In the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
knew not God] That is, the world in its divinity could not
by its wisdom know God.
m Beresh. Rabb. sect. 24. n Avodah Zarah, fol. 5. 1.
Ch. 1.6,9.] Evercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 77
Σοφία tod Θεοῦ, the wisdom of God, is not to be understood
that wisdom which had God for its author, but that had God
for its object: and is to be rendered wisdom about God.
There was among the heathen σοφία τῆς φύσεως, wisdom about
natural things, and σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ, wisdom about God, that is,
divinity. “ But the world in its divinity could not by wisdom
know God.”
Gi A belles
Ver. 6: Σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ aidvos τούτου: Yet the wisdom not
of this world.| The apostle mentions a fourfold wisdom :
I. Heathen wisdom, or that of the philosophers, chap. i. 22:
which was commonly called among the Jews MI WAIN
Grecian wisdom. Which was so undervalued by them, that
they joined these two under the same curse: “ Cursed is he
that breeds hogs; and cursed is he who teacheth his son Gre-
cian wisdom.”
II. Jewish wisdom: that of the scribes and Pharisees who
erucified Christ, ver. 8.
III. The wisdom of the gospel, ver. 7.
IV. The wisdom τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, of this world: distin-
guished as it seems from the rest, where this world is to be
taken in that sense, as TIM DO! is, as it is opposed to
Nan oor the world to come. And he speaks of the last
and highest wisdom, which who is there that could obtain ἐν
αἰῶνι τούτῳ, in this world, before the revelation of the gospel
in the coming of Christ, which was αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων. the world
to come? And this is that the apostle does, namely, to show
that the highest, yea, the soundest wisdom of the ages before-
going, was not in any manner to be compared with the bright-
ness of the evangelic wisdom.
Ver. gi: “A ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε, &e. Hye hath not seen,
&c.| “R.Chaia Bar Abba saith", ‘BR. Jochanan saith, All the
prophets prophesied not but of the days of the Messias:
sma 5 Ty Sat obi brary but as to the world to come,
eye hath not seen, O God, besides thee,” [18. lxiv. 4,) &e. These
words are repeated elsewhere’ upon another occasion. Where
ο English folio edit., vel. ll. p. 743. © Bab. Sanhedr. fol. go. 1.
P Bava Kama, fol. 8 5. Schabb. fol. 63. 1.
1 Leusden’s edition, Si il. p. 886.
LIGHTEOOT, VOL. IV. N
178 - Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. iii. 1, 12.
the Gloss: “The eyes of the prophets could not see these
things.”
You see here the Rabbin distinguishes between the days
of Messsiah and the world to come; which is sometimes
done by others; but they are very commonly confounded.
And you see upon what reason, yea upon what necessity he
was driven to this distinction, namely, that he supposed some
things laid up for those that waited for God, which the eyes
of the prophets never saw. ‘ But (saith he) the prophets saw
the good things of the days of the Messiah; therefore they
are laid up for the world to come, after the days of the Mes-
518}. Rabbin, learn from Paul, that the revelation under the
gospel is far more bright than the prophets ever attained to.
CHAP. Ii.
Ver. 1: ‘Qs νηπίοις" As unto babes.| The Hebrews would
say MPI little children, (from a word that. signifies to
give suck.) Hence that saying is very common, by nyarnn
ἸΏ MA children im school. “ Rabh' said to Rabh Samuel
Bar Shillah [the schoolmaster], Take a child of six years of
age, and give him food as you would do an ox.” ‘The Gloss
is, “ Feed him with the law, as you feed an ox which you
fatten.” aw “a ty wa oy Sabana on NM Let a
man deal gently with his son to his twelfth year. The Gloss
there; “If he refuse to learn, let him deal gently with him
and with fair words,” &e.
Ver. 12%: Ξύλα, χόρτον, καλάμην Wood, hay, stubble.| That
the apostle is speaking of doctrines, is plain by the context:
I. He supposeth these builders, although they built not so
well, yet to have set themselves upon that work with no ill
mind; ver. 15, “ He himself shall be saved.”
lI. By the several kinds of these things, “ gold, silver,
wood, hay, stubble,” we may understand not only the dif-
ferent manner of teaching, but even the different kinds of
doctrines taught. For if they had all propounded the same
truth and doctrine, it had been no great matter if they had
not all declared it in the same manner. But while some pro-
duce “gold, silver, wood,” precious, pure, sound doctrine,
others bring “ hay, stubble,” doctrine that is vile, trifling, and
τ Chetub. fol. 50. 1. ἃ English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 744.
——
Ch. ii. 13.) Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 179
of no value or solidity: the very doctrines were different: and
some were such as could endure the trial of the fire, and
others which could not. .
III. There were some who scattered grains of Judaism
among the people: but this they did not as professedly op-
posing the gospel, but out of ignorance, and because they did
not as yet sufficiently understand the simplicity of the gospel.
Paul calls these and such like doctrines “ hay and stubble,”
to be consumed by fire: yet while they in the mean time who
had taught such things might escape, because they opposed
not the truth out of malice, but out of ignorance had broached
falsehood.
Ver. 13: ‘H yap ἡμέρα δηλώσει: ὅτι ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται"
For the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire. |
Two things shall discover every man’s work, the day and the fire.
Both which you may not understand amiss of the word of
God manifesting and proving all things. For the light of
the gospel is very frequently called the day, and the law of
God called fire, Deut. xxxiil. 2.
But I had rather in this place understand by the day, the
day of the Lord that was shortly coming, and by fire, the fire
of divine indignation to be poured out upon the Jewish na-
tion. And I am the more inelined to this interpretation,
because there is so frequent remembrance of that day and
five in the Holy Scriptures.
When therefore there were some who built Judaism upon
the gospel foundation, and that out of unskilfulness and igno-
rance of the simplicity of the gospel, (for of such the apostle
here speaks,) he foretells and threatens that the day and fire
of the Lord is coming upon the Jews: by which the folly and
inconsistency of that superstructure would not only be re-
vealed, but that very superstructure itself should perish.
This place being taken in this sense, all the things the apo-
stle speaks in this passage become plain: that ire shall prove
doctrines, whether they are evangelical or no. If any one’s
work or doctrine will endure the trial of that jive, he shall
receive the reward of sound doctrine: if the doctrine of any
will not endure it, but be consumed, he shall receive the da-
mage of his pains and labour lost, but he himself shall be
saved; but this, as he is proved by fire.
N 2
180 Hebrew and Taliudical (Ch. iv. 6, 8.
Would you have a parallel of a doctrine and building of
straw concerning which Paul speaks? “ The* Rabbins deliver,
Tos eS hs SS ne" Nb Let no man plaster his house
with lime; ΓΝ JAN SN bin ἋΣ JAW ON but if he mix
sand and straw with lime, it is allowed.’ The tradition re-
spects the times after the destruction of the Temple, when, by
reason of the mourning for that fatal overthrowY, it was not
permitted them to whiten their walls, but to let them be
overrun with blackness, as a colour fit for mourners. There-
fore it was not permitted to whiten the walls with lime only,
lest they should look too bright : but if they were mixed with
sand and straw, whereby the whiteness of the lime might be
darkened, then it was permitted. A doctrine of straw truly,
from a superstruction of straw; and that yields a very fit
image of those Jewish doctrines of which the apostle speaks,
clouding the brightness of the gospel.
CHAP TV2
Ver.6: Μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ ᾿Απολλώ: I have in a
figure transferred to myself and to Apollos.| And why not to
himself and Cephas? From this very place, if it may not else-
where be proved, it appears Peter taught not at Corinth. The
apostle treats purposely of their principal ministers ; and it is
past belief that he would pass by Peter, if Peter had preached
among them.
When he saith that ‘he transferred these things in a figure
to himself and Apollos,’ he understands not the changing of
names and persons; nor doth he transfer the names of others
into his person and Apollos’s, that he might not reprove any
by name, (which sense is commonly fixed to this place ;) but
the figure which he useth is this; namely, while he speaks of
that preaching of the gospel which was plain, and rude, and
very distant from human wisdom; and on the contrary, of
that preaching which was elegant, well studied, and more pro-
found; these things, saith he, | have transferred in this
scheme to myself and Apollos, the former way of preaching to
myself, the latter to Apollos.
Ver. 8: Ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι ἐστὲ, &e. Now ye are full, &e.]
x Bab. Bathr. fol. 60. 2. Υ Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 887.
2 English folio edition, vol. il. p. 745.
Ch. v.1,2.] Huwvercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 181
A bitter taunt! chastising the boasting of the Corinthians,
who had forgot from whom they had first received those evan-
gelical privileges concerning which they now prided them-
selves. They were enriched with spiritual gifts; they reigned,
themselves being judges, in the very top of the dignity and
happiness of the gospel; and that “ without us, saith the apo-
stle, as though ye owed nothing to us for those privileges :”
and “O, would to God ye did reign;” and that it went so
happily and well with you indeed, that we also might reign
with you, and that we might partake of some happiness in this
your promotion, and might be of some account among you !
CTHLA Ps V.
Ver. 1: Ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν That one should
have his father’s wife.| Not his own mother, but the wife of
his father who was stil! alive, as it seems from the Second
Epistle to these Corinthians, chap. vil. 12: “1 wrote to you,
not in respect of him that had done the wrong, nor in respect
of him that suffered the wrong.” He that had done the
wrong was plainly this incestuous person: for it will scarcely
be denied but that the apostle there speaks of that business.
And who is he that suffered the wrong? The father, without
doubt; now certainly alive, and not deceased; for it would
scarcely have been said of him if dead, that he suffered wrong
by this wicked action.
Ver. 2: Καὶ ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστέ: And ye are puffed up.|
It is a wonder indeed that they mourned not; but it is more
wonderful that they should be puffed up and glory in such a
wickedness as is shown at ver.6. But whence proceeded so
foolish and wicked a boasting? Ὁ
I. Perhaps from the affectation of a party, and the bitter-
ness of their contentions, the adverse party triumphing against
that party in which happened so grievous a fall.
II. Perhaps?, by an ill conceit of the liberty of the gospel,
they triumphed in this thing, as though the gospel had brought
in such a liberty against the law.
III. Or it may seem that the father of the incestuous
person was not a Christian, but either a heathen or an un-
ἃ Kaglish folio edition, vol. il. p. 746.
182 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. v. 2.
believing Jew; but the mother converted to Christianity, and
so the son also. And hence might happen the departing of
the wife from the unbelieving husband, and her marrying with
the believing son. Thence might the glorying of the Corinth-
ians proceed, not from this merely, that the son had married
his mother-in-law, (for to think that would be ridiculous,) but
that the gospel had so prevailed as to separate even a wife
from an unbelieving husband.
Καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε, ἵνα ἐξαρθῆ- And have not rather
mourned that he might be taken away.| ‘It was your duty, O
ye Corinthians, to have besought God with prayers and fast-
ings to take away from among you so wicked a man, if so be
he repented not: ‘ but you are puffed up,’” &e. Πενθεῖν, to
mourn, in this place seems to extend to the sense of MIN
fasting, among the Hebrews.
«These? are to be stoned; aNT ws Sy ONT by NAT
He that lies with his mother, or with the wife of his father. He
that lies with his mother is (doubly) guilty, both because she
is his mother, and beeause she is his father’s wife. He that
lies with the wife of his father is (doubly) guilty, both because
she is the wife of his father, and because she is the wife of
another: whether his father be living® or dead, and whether
she be the wife of his father by espousal or marriage.” See
also Maimonides’. And elsewhere this very sin is adjudged to
eutting off: TNA MN ‘gb there are thirty-six cuttings
off in the law, or thirty-six who are to be cut off, by NAT
aN ΠΙῺΝ otal OM he that lies with his mother, or with the
wife of his father, &e.
_ It may indeed seem a wonder that one and the same crime
should be adjudged to ‘stoning,’ which was inflicted by the
Sanhedrim, and to ‘ cutting off, which was by the hand of
God. But hear the Glosser; “ All those cuttings off, saith
he, are concerning things done presumptuously, FNANT NPI
where there was no previous admonition or protestation : but if
there were previous admonition, some of them are adjudged to
strangling, and some to stoning. But if these things are done
out of ignorance, a sacrifice for sin is required.”
M3 Cutting off was by the immediate hand of God, which
Ὁ Sanhedr. cap. 7. hal. 4. ἃ In Issure Biah, cap. 1. 2.
Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 588. ©-Cherithuth, cap. i. hal. τ,
'
Ἶ
;
Ch.v.5.] Evxereitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 183
this impious person had deserved in the highest degree : for
that this wicked act was done by him out of ignorance, it
would be ridiculous to imagine.
Ver.5: Παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ" To deliver unto Satan.]
A few thinas concerning excommunication among the Jews. Whe-
ther ‘to excommunicate’ and ‘to deliver to Satan’
among them were the same.
Being to speak of excommunication among the Jews, we must
first speak a little concerning MD) reproof, which with the
Babylonian writers was the same with excommunication. YS
DO) FO MAND WD) “ Leprooft or admonition is not less than
- for seven days: as it is said, If her father spit in her face, shall
she not be ashamed seven days? (Numb. xii. 12.) Rabbi Chasda
saith, wow mes Sy ΤΣ Our excommunication (in
Babylon) is like their reproof” (in the land of Israel).
These examples are there produced: “ R. Simeon the son
of Rabbi (Judah) and Bar Kaphra sat reading ; and when
the place which they read was too hard, R. Simeon said to
Bar Kaphra, We have need of Rabbi for an interpreter here.
To whom Bar Kaphra, And what can Rabbi say in this
matter? R. Simeon went away and told this to his father,
who thereupon was angry. Bar Kaphra came to visit him.
He said to him, O Bar Kaphra, I knew you not. He knew
what he meant: SMID"t) AM) therefore he underwent reproof
thirty days.” And again; “ Rabbi sometime commanded
that the masters teach not their scholars in the streets; ap-
plying those words mystically hither, ‘The compass of thy
thighs are like jewels, (Cant. vii.1.) As the thighs are in
secret, so the words of the law are in secret. 7). Chatja
(NN 5) came forth, and taught the two sons of his brother
in the street; that is, Rabh, and Bar Bar Channah. Rabbi
heard this and was angry. R. Chaija came to visit him. He
saith to him, δ) O Aija, who shall read to thee in the
street?” (The Gloss there: “ He called him δ ΛΔ) Azja in con-
tempt: Who shall read to thee in the street, is as much as if
he had said, Begone hence.”) ‘‘ He knew why he uttered
such words against him; therefore he took 75.3) the reproof
for thirty days.”
f Bab. Moed Katon, fol. τό. 1.
184 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ο v. 5.
R. Asher¢ sticks in this business why Bar Kaphra and
R. Chaija submitted themselves thirty days to that ‘ reproof,’
when it extended not itself beyond seven days: concerning
which let the reader see, if he be at leisure, what he dis-
courseth.
The difference between 75°F) reproof, and W773 excommunt-
cation, was this:
[- That reproof, or correption, had not need of absolution ;
excommunication had.
If. Although he who was struck with such reproof kept
himself within doors, and went not abroad as a man ashamed,
yet others abstained not from his company. Before him whe
had struck him with that thunder he appeared not, nor con-
versed in public ; yet any one might resort to him at home.
So R.Chaija is said to have taught Rabh at home those
thirty days.
κε Reproof T1533 (say the masters) is, when some eminent
man chides another, saying, How impudent is N., or some-
thing of that nature. Now the condition of a man thus chid-
den, or reproved, is this: he hides himself, and keeps himself
at home as one ashamed, that he may not see his face who
shamed him; nor does he stand before him with his head un-
covered. He abates also of his laughter, and of his words,
and of his business, and makes hiniself sad before those that
see him. But there is no need for him to withdraw himself
from men, but he may eat and drink with them, and salute
them. Nor needs he to please him that reproved him, nor
needs he absolution: but when he hath taken the reproof
upon him, and the time is expired, he is free.” Compare the
words of the apostle, 1 Tim. v. 1, πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξης, &e.
rebuke not an elder, &e. with this T5533.
And now to pass to excommunication itself.
I, Hxcommunication was devised and found out by the Jews,
if my eyes see anything, to be a punishment of those faults
for which there was’no other punishment decreed, either in
the Holy Seriptures, or in the traditions. I believe he scarcely
was excommunicated among the Jews, for whose offence the
punishment either of cutting off, or of death, or of whipping,
or of restitution of double or fourfold, &e., was openly ap-
' English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 747.
Ch. v. 5.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 185
pointed either by the law or by the fathers of the tradi-
tions. But in those things concerning which there was no
such appointment or punishment, what was to be done! There
were faults worthy of punishment, but neither law nor scribes
assign® them any of all those punishments which were named:
but certainly provision ought to be made, that such things be
not done without punishment. Hence excommunication was
invented as the general punishment of such faults. The thing
itself, if I mistake not, speaks this, if we well weigh those
things for which excommunication was inflicted.
II. The causes or reasons of excommunication were generally
_ two: namely, sand for money ; and spans for epicu-
rism. This distinction we meet with in a place inf their
Talmud, where they treat at large of excommunication, and
whence we have many things concerning this subject.
Excommunication for money was not when one owing another
money did not pay it; for an action at law laid against him :
but when he was summoned into court and adjudged by the
bench to pay it, and yet paid it not.
What ΝΡ ΘΝ Lpicurism means we may learn from the
definition of Epicurus. “ Epicuruss is he that despiseth the
words of God. Epicurus is he that despiseth the scholars of
the wise men.” The Aruch saith thus; “75N is he that
speaks with an ill tongue; he is Epicurus.”” Among the Tal-
mudists DN denotes one that is presumptuous, dissolute, a
man governed by no rule. Thence DIVIDER Epicurus, lawless,
dissolute, not circumscribed within the laws of the scribes. 25
O°" is rendered by the Gloss OPIN Wy the heretics
have hardened their faces. 37 937 srpowa “panna, The
Gloss renders it, Hei reproacheth the messenger of the San-
hedrim.
More particularly.“ Rambamk of blessed memory saith,
For twenty-four causes they excommunicate either man or
woman; and these are they that are to be excommunicated.”
1. “ He that vilifies a wise man, yea, after his death.”
2. ** He that vilifies the messenger of the Sanhedrim.”
3. “ He who calls his companion servant.”
e Leusden’s edit., vol. 11. p. 889. nh Megill. fol. 25. 2.
f Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1. i Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1.
& Sanhedr. fol. 90. 2. k Orach Chaaim, cap. 359.
186 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. v. 5.
4. “He that sets at nought one word of the scribes ; there
is no need to say he that sets at nought the law.”
5. “ Who appears not at the day set him by the bench.”
6. “ Who submits not to the judgment of the bench, they
excommunicate him till he do submit.”
7. “ Who keeps any hurtful thing; for example, a fierce
dog or a broken ladder; they excommunicate him till he put
it away.”
8. “ Who sells his farm to a heathen, they excommunicate
him until he take upon himself all the wrong which may thence
come to an Israelite his neighbour.”
g. “* Who gives evidence against an Israelite before a hea-
then tribunal; and by that evidence extorts money from him:
they excommunicate him until he pay it back again.”
το. “ΑΚ butcher priest, who divides not a portion to the
other priest, they excommunicate him until he gives it.”
11. “ Who profaneth the second feast day of the captivity
although it be according to custom.” Of this day see Mai-
monides!.
12. “ Who doth any servile work on the Passover-eve
afternoon.”
13. “ὙΠῸ mentioneth the name of God in vain, either in
an oath or in words.”
14. “ Who compels the people to eat the holy things out of
the bounds.”
15. “« Who compels the people to profane the name of God.”
16. “ Who interealates the year or months without the
land of Israel.”
17. “ Who lays a stumblingblock before the blind.”
18. “ Who hinders the people from performing the precept.”
1g. ** The butcher who offers a torn beast.”
20. “ The butcher who showeth not his knife to a wise man
to be approved of.”
21. “ Who hardens himself against knowledge.”
22. “ Who hath put away his wife, and yet hath partner-
ship and dealing with her.”
23. “ A wise man that lies under an ill fame.”
k English folio edition, vol. iu. p. 748.
1 In Kiddush. Hodesh, cap. 5.
Ch. v. 5.] Exercitations upon τ Epist. Corinth. 187
24. “ Who excommunicates him that deserves not excom-
munication.”
These you have likewise in the learned Buxtorf’s Talmudic
Lexicon, in the word ‘V73™.
By how much the more carefully I look upon the causes
and reasons of excommunication, so much the more I persist
in my opinion, that excommunication was invented as a punish-
ment for those faults for which no kind of punishment was
decreed, either by the law, or by any traditional canons. Con-
sider them singly, and perhaps you will be of my opinion.
III. He against whom they were to proceed by excommu-
nication was first cited, and a day set him wherein to appear,
by a messenger sent him by the bench, which certified him of
the day, and of the persons before whom he was to appear.
IW WIM IW Ma pwnd They appoint him the second
day of the week, (on which day they sit in the court, and as-
semble in the synagogue,) and the fifth day of the week, (on
which day also there is an assembly and a session,) and the
second of the week following. If he appeared not on the day
first appointed, they look for him unto the day that was
secondly appointed and thirdly appointed. And this was
when the case was about money: anos nope br 39
but of it were for Epicurism (if he made not his appearance on
the first day appointed), they excommunicate him without delay.
IV. They°® first struck him with simple excommunication,
which they call 1753 niddui, in which there was not absolute
cursing. ποῦ WA pR ond 5 InP ‘nidduw’ was not ab-
solute cursing. For they said only "73 NTT Let N. be under
excommunication.
V. This excommunication was for thirty days. “VW pR
owen min “ Excommunication4 (niddut) was not less than
for thirty days: as it is said, Until a month, until the flesh
come out of your nostrils,” Numb. xi. 20. But if the excom-
municated person appeased those that excommunicated him
within that time, they absolve him forthwith.
VI. But if he persisted in his perverseness, the thirty days
being ended, they excommunicate him again, pobom 2
m [Col. 1303 foll.] P Piske wen in Moed Katon,
" Moed Katon, fol. τό. τ. art, 55.
ο Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 8go. a Hieros. Moed Katon, fol. 81. 3.
188 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. v. 5.
SMS adding also a curse. And this second excommunication
they call δ ΓΟ shammatha. jYMIWIT PID “ Whence® is
it that we ‘ shammatize?’ In that it is written, Curse ye
Meroz,” Judges ν. 23. Rabbenu Asher upon the place :
“ Baraks shammatized Meroz; as it is written, Curse ye Meroz:
which is both "W792 excommunication, and aeop cursing : for
in the word AN is both excommunication and cursing.”
VII. They published his offence in the synagogue. |W 5
NVDVI Mxon Wet particularly publish his crime in the
synagogue. The Gloss is: “ They said to his fellow citizens,
For this and this cause we shamimatize him.”
VIII. If he persist still for these thirty days in his per-
verseness, ΓΝ pom they anathematized him. pq
fs) smb elm men 5 and paw They excommunicate
him; and after thirty days they again excommunicate (sham-
matize) him; and after sixty they anathematize. Rabbenu
Asher saith", “‘ They anathematize, saying, Let him be under
anathema. And this is much more heavy than either niddut,
or shammatha. For in this is both excommunication and
cursing, and the forbidding the use of any men, unless in those
things only which belong to the sustaining of life. And they
anathematize not but when a man hath hardened himself
against the bench once and again.”
IX. They give the reason of these proceedings in Moed
Eaton * in these words:
“Whence is it that they send a messenger to him from the
court (ID from the house of judament ?) Because it is written,
‘And Moses sent to Dathan and Abiram.’”
“ Whence is it that they summon him to judgment! Be-
cause it-is written, ‘ And Moses said to Korah, Be thou and
all thy company present.”
“Whence? is it that they cite him before some great and
eminent man? Because it is written, ‘ Before the Lord. ”
« Whenee is it that it is before N., or such a man? Because
it is written, ‘ Thou, and they, and Aaron.’”
“Ὁ Whence is it that they appoint them a set time of appear-
2 99
ance? Because it is written, ‘ Be ye present to morrow.
¥ Bab Moed Katon, in the place ἃ In the place above.
before. x In the place alleged.
S Fol. 34. 2. Y English folio edit., vol... p.749-
* Moed Katon in the place before.
eee ee
Ch. v. 5.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 189
“ Whence is it that it is from time to time? Because it is
written, ‘ They did ery there, Pharaoh king of Egypt is but a
noise; he hath passed the time appointed. ” Jer. xlvi. 17.
“ Whence is it that they shammatize? Because it is written,
‘Curse ye Meroz.’ ”’
‘“ Whence is it that they anathematize? Because it is writ-
ten, ‘Curse ye.’ ”
‘““Whencee is it that he is cursed that eats and drinks with
him, and stands within four cubits of him? Because it is
written maw , 28 one would say, sedentes ejus, or those that sit
with her,” Judges v. 23.
“ Whence is it that they publish his crimes in the syna-
gogue? Because it is written, ‘ Because they came not to the
help of the Lord, ”
“ Whence is it that they confiscate his goods? Because it
is written, ‘ Whosoever comes not within three days, accord-
ing to the counsel of the princes and elders, all his substance
shall be forfeited,” Ezra x. 8.
“ Whence is it that we contend with him, and curse him,
and strike him, and pull off his hair, and abjure him? Be-
cause it is written, ‘ And I contended with him, and cursed
them, and struck some of them, and pulled off their hair,”
Neh. xiii. 25.
‘Whence is it that we tie and bind them?” (The Gloss is,
His hands and feet, and to a pillar, to be whipped.) ““ Because
it is written, ‘ Either to death or banishment, or confiscation
of goods, or imprisonment,’ ” Ezra vii. 26.
You see excommunication among the Jews drawn out by
their own pencil from head to foot. And now whether this,
themselves being judges, were delivering into the hands of
Satan, is matter of further inquiry, and more obscure inquiry
too. Any such saying of excommunication does not at all
occur In terms; and whether it oceur in sense, let the reader
judge from those things that are spoken of the condition of
the person excommunicate.
I. pra Pt my This? ἐδ the condition of a person ex-
communicate. They eat not nor drink with him, nor sit within
four cubits of him,” (his wife, and children, and servants
being excepted, to whom it was permitted to sit by him.)
2 Piske wom in Moed Katon, cap. 3.
190 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. ν. 5.
‘“ When they give thanks”’ (at meat), “they join him? not in
the thanks, nor admit him to any thing which wants the ten
men. But any may talk with him, and he hires workmen,
and he is hired himself for a workman.”
II. As to those things which respect religion,
First, Persons excommunicate went to the Temple as well
as others. ‘ All> that go into the Temple, according to the
custom, go in the right-hand way, and go about and go out
the left-hand way, except him to whom any thing happens,
who walked about to the left hand.”
“ Being asked what is the matter with you, that you go
about to the left, he answered, Because 1 am excommunicate,
(FIT ΝῺ.) To whom the other replied, He that dwells
in this house put it into thy heart to hearken to the words of
thy companions.” :
Secondly, “ It© is a tradition. ἽΞ PAW ΤΣ ΤΣ He
that is excommunicate expounds the traditions, and they expound
to him. He that is anathematized expounds not to others,
nor do they expound to him; but he expounds by himself,
that he forget not his learning.” And again, It¢ is permitted
the excommunicate person to deal in the law: but to the
person anathematized it is forbidden. But he expounds by
himself.”
Thirdly, He that turns over the Talmudical authors shall
very often observe that a person ‘excommunicate,’ and he that
‘mourns for the dead,’ are subject to the same conditions in
very many things: yea the ‘mourner’ to worse conditions.
‘“The® mourner and the person excommunicate are for-
bidden to have their hair cut. The mourner is bound to veil
his head; the excommunicate not. The mourner on the first
day is deprived of his phylacteries; the excommunicate not.
The mourner is forbidden salutation; to the excommunicate
it is permitted: much more is it lawful to talk with him.
The mourner is forbid to employ himself in the law; to the
excommunicate it is permitted. But the person anathema-
tized may not converse in the law; but he expounds it to
a Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p.891. ἃ Piske ws in the place above,
> Middoth, cap. ii. hal. 2. art. 5 1.
© Orach Chajim, in the place € Piske Harosh in the place above,
before. anes ας
Ch.v.5.] Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 191
himself, and he makes himself a little tent for his food. The
mourner is bound to the rending of his garment ; the excom-
municate not. The mourner is forbid to do any work; to the
excommunicate it is allowed. The mourner is forbid to wash
himself? to the excommunicate it is allowed. The mourner
putteth not on sandals ; the excommunicate puts them on.
The mourner lies not with his wife; the excommunicate lies
with his,” ὅσο.
From what hath been said, it seems that it may be con-
cluded on one part that excommunication among the Jews
scarcely sounded the same with delivering to Satan: and
_there are some reasons also by which it seems it may be con-
cluded in like manner, that delivering to Satan here in the
apostle doth not sound the same with excommunication. Bet
it granted that he is excommunicated and cast out of the
church, is rejected also by God, and is indeed delivered into
the hands of Satan; this is not that which is our task at pre-
sent to consider; but whether Paul by his let him be deli-
vered to Satan, or the Corinthians by that expression, under-
stood excommunication. We embrace the negative for these
reasons :— .
I. Because no reason can be rendered why the apostle, re-
jecting the vulgar and most known word excommunication,
should fly to another that was very unknown, very obscure.
II. The act of this wicked wretch was above excommunit-
cation. And it was a small matter for such an impious man
to be excommunicated. He deserved death, as we have ob-
served, two or three times over. And it was more agreeable
to that extraordinary wickedness, that it should have some
more extraordinary punishment inflicted on it than that very
common one of excommunication.
III. Why should the apostle use such earnest counsel and
exhortation to excite the church to excommunicate one that
so deserved excommunication ὃ Was excommunication a thing
so difficult to be obtained among them? What need was there
of the presence of St. Paul’s spirit in a thing any ministers of
the church were empowered to do? What need was there of
such solemn determination (ἤδη κέκρικα, I have determined
f English folio edition, vol. il. p. 750.
192 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. v. 5.
already), in a thing concerning which every one would confess
that he deserved excommunication ?
IV. 70 deliver to Satan was εἰς ὄλεθρον σαρκὺς, for destruc-
tion of the flesh. But what could excommunication avail to
that in a man sworn’ upon his lusts? You will say, Perhaps
it might come to pass that it might have such an effect. But
I reply, when the apostle saith, to the destruction of the flesh,
he speaks not of a fortuitous effect, but of a certain or un-
doubted one.
These are the reasons, to omit others, whereby we are led
to be of their opinion who interpret the place of a miraculous
action, namely, of the real delivery of this person into the
hands and power of Satan, to be scourged by him, and tor-
mented by him with diseases, tortures, and affrightments.
And the phrases used by the apostle about this matter, and
the circumstances of the thing itself, do very well accord
hereunto.
Ἤδη κέκρικα ws παρών" I have judged already, as though I
were present.| 1. To deliver to Satan is never mentioned in
Scripture but when there was an apostolic power, as here,
and 1 Tim. i.20. And that apostalic power of striking obsti-
nate persons miraculously, or wicked sinners with any punish-
ment, was not usually put forth by them, unless in the pre-
sence of the parties, as by Peter against Ananias and Sap-
phira, and by Paul against Eiymas; and likewise, as it is very
probable, against Hymeneus and Alexander; yet he being
now a great way distant and remote, ‘“ ‘I have judged’ (saith
he) ‘and decreed’ to exercise at a distance this my power
against this wicked man, as though I were present and before
his face ; which indeed was not ordinarily done, but this was
not an ordinary wickedness.
II. To this sense is that clause to be rendered, καὶ τοῦ
πνεύματός μου, and my spirit; that is, my ‘ apostolical spirit,’
or the gift of the Spirit conferred upon me. So “ the spirit ©
of Klas dwelt upon Elisha,” 2 Kings 1.15; that is, the pro-
phetical spirit of Ehas.
III. And compare that clause, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, with
o
& ** Hominem in libidines suas juratum.”
h Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 892.
ta
Ch. v. 9.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 193
the same manner of speech, Acts iii. 6, “ In the name of Jesus
Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk;”’ namely, when a miracle
was to be done: and also,
IV. The word δύναμις, power, is very usually in the gospel
referred to miracles: it is very rarely, if at all, used for the
power of discipline.
Let us conclude our discourse of excommunication among
the Jews with a tradition received among them; which see if
you please: mos MD mbt paw pay ween «Ti
the Rabbins’ serpent bite any one, there is no cure for him. Bar
Kasha in Pumbeditha was bitten by the Rabbins’ serpent, and
_ there was no cure for him.” The Gloss is; ‘“ Because he had
transgressed against the excommunication of the wise men:
therefore when he was bitten by a serpent there was no heal-
ing for him.
Ver. gk: Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ" I wrote unto you in an
epistle.| In an epistle? What?
I. The Aorist ἔγραψα may be rendered J had written,
without any wrong to grammar. “‘JZ had written in this
Kpistle, Company not,’ &c. before the report of this wicked-
hess came to me: but now hearing it I sharpen my pen the
more, and I bind you with a straiter prohibition, namely,
‘That ye do not eat with such.”
II. The apostle had sent Timothy to the Corinthians before
he wrote this Epistle, chap. iv.17: and it is very likely that
he sent some epistle by him in which he had so written. But
Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, coming to the apostle,
and laying open the whole state of the church of Corinth to
him, and bringing him letters and questions from the church,
when as yet, as they knew, Timothy was not arrived at
Corinth; he suppresses that epistle, and comprises it in this.
And if you say, That is lost, you will say true in some respect,
because the exact copy of that epistle came not unto us: and
you will not say true in another respect, because in this
Kpistle we have all things comprised in that, and mueh more
besides.
Μὴ ovvavapiyvoda Not to company.| 1. It is plain the
apostle riseth higher here, and obligeth them with a straiter
admonition than he had done before. He had written to them
1 Schab. fol. 110. 1. k English folio edition, vol. il. p. 751:
LIGHTFOOT, VOL, IV. 0
194 Hebrew and Talinudical (Ch. v. 9.
before μὴ συναναμίγνυσθάι, not to company with them: now he
writes μὴ συνεσθίειν, not to eat with them.
IT. It is plain also that he aims his words at profane
Christians, not at heathens, both now and when he writ
before. For there were among the Christians converted from
heathenism some, without doubt, whose parents, or children,
or kinsmen, not yet converted, wallowed in idolatry, covetous-
ness, and whoredoms. But now a Christian was not to forget
all these alliances ; nor was all familiarity and respect towards
them to be cast away.
IIT. “ The word συναναμίγνυσθαι denotes, saith Camerarius,
necessitudinem aliquam interiorem, some more tntimate friend-
ship, or alliances: which indeed in some respect is true, if
that more inward friendship be distinguished into that which
is more close and less close. Συνανάμιξις is to be reckoned
that conversation and friendship which a Jew might enter into
with a Jew, and not with a heathen: according to the rule of
which, as being very well known, it scarcely can be doubted
but the apostle speaks.
I. A Jew might deal and traffick with a heathen never-
theless, under this and some other cautions of that nature:
om ἃ ‘sy by wees 195 “ Three! days before the festi-
vals of the heathens, it is forbidden to give and receive with them,
to lend to or to borrow of them, to restore or to fetch back
any thing,” ὅσο. I scarcely believe this falls under the signi-
fication of the word συναναμίγνυσθαι, companying.
II. To eat together and at one table was συναναμίγνυσθαι,
to company, which certainly appears enough from the strait
prohibition of such eating with a heathen. A Pharisee, in
markets and fairs, would have dealing with a common person ;
but he would not eat with him. So a common person would
trade with a heathen; but he would not eat with him. The
apostle therefore does not oppose συναναμίγνυσθαι, company-
tng, and συνεσθίειν, eating together, one against another, but
propounds eating together as a certain degree συναναμίξεως, of
companying or mixing together. For,
III. There was, which by common experience may be
observed, a much more inward friendship than such a bare
eating, namely, that which is called by the Jews’ lawyers
‘ Avodah Zarah, cap. 1.
Ch.v.12.] Evxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 195
MPN W copartnership in merchandise and traffick ; and that
which is called by us ‘ deputation :’ both forbidden a Jew
with a Gentile. “aM oy meamw mow od mow,
“76 πὸ is forbidden a man to enter into copartnership with a hea-
then ; lest haply he must sometime swear, and is compelled to
swear by his 140]. And Maimonides": TWYI YO PS
mw “A heathen is not made a messenger [or a deputy] for
any thing, nor is an Israelite made a deputy for a heathen.”
IV. Friendship was yet more close by contract of mar-
riage and affinity: this the LXX eall συγκατάμιξις, Josh.
XXHl. 12.
And now it is not very hard to fathom the sense of the
apostle, which take in this paraphrase: “1 wrote you in an
epistle that ye mingle not with fornicators in any more inward
familiarity or friendship: which I understood not so much of
heathen fornicators, as of those who are called brethren or
Christians. But now I write the same°® thing, that ye
mingle not in any such familiarity with them, or others of
that stamp P, as covetous, or idolaters: no, not in that fami-
liarity that is most remote, namely, eating with such a man at
the same table.”
Ver. 12: Τί yap μοι καὶ τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν ; What have I te do to
judge them also that are without ?| Here, perhaps, one may stick
at the version and sense commonly received. Beza reads,
Quid mea interest ? What doth it concern me? The French,
Qu’ai-je a faire de juger? What have I to do to judge? The
Italian, Che appartiene a me giudicare? What doth it belong
to me to judge? I know well enough the phrase τί μοι very
frequently occurs in this sense: but here we may upon good
ground inquire, If it concerns thee not, O blessed apostle, to
judge them that are without, why didst thou judge Elymas
with blindness? why Hymeneus and Alexander, by deli-
vering them into the hands of Satan, when they were now
apostates, and no other than such as were without ?
What therefore if the words be rendered to this sense;
“For why is power granted me to judge concerning them
also that are without? that is, by my apostolic authority to
strike even a heathen with some divine plague, if he be incu-
m Bab. Sanhedr. fol. 63. 2. ο Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 893.
2 Schilluchin, &c. cap. 2. P English folio edit., vol. ii. p.752.
O 2
196 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vi. 1.
rably an enemy, and blasphemer of the gospel; which I did
to Elymas, &e. Why is this granted me, but to cut off such
as are past cure? And do not you also, within your sphere,
judge those who are within? But now those that are without
which I thus judge and smite, God judgeth and smites, and
by his vengeance gives his suffrage to my censure. Καὶ ἐξ-
apetre, therefore put away: in like manner you also, doing
what lies in you, may take away this man, and other such
wicked persons, by that hand of God.” It cannot be passed
over without observing that ἐξαρεῖτε is the future tense, and
it is not rashly to be rendered by another tense. We explain
therefore the whole place by this paraphrase: ‘It is given me
by God to judge those also that are without; and do not ye
judge them that are within? But those that are without,
whom I judge, God himself judgeth; and you also by the like
judgment. may take away this wicked person out of the midst
of you.” The LXX, in Deut. xvii. 7, ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ
ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, Thou shalt take away the wicked person from among
you ; and elsewhere very frequently.
CEEAGE ΝΕ
Ver.t: Κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων" Go to law before the un-
just.| We cannot here but first of all produce the words of
Titus the emperor, thus discoursing to the seditious that were
besieged in Jerusalem: Πρῶτον μὲν ὑμῖν τήν τε χώραν ἔδομεν
νέμεσθαι, καὶ βασιλεῖς ὁμοφύλους ἐπεστήσαμεν. ἔπειτα τοὺς πα-
τρίους νόμους ἐτηρήσαμεν. καὶ ζῆ» οὐ μόνον καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς, ἀλλὰ καὶ
τοὺς ἄλλους ἐπετρέψαμεν, ὡς ἐβούλεσθε. First4, we have
granted you to dwell in your own country, and have set over you
kings of the same tribes with yourselves. Then we have preserved
your country’s laws, and have permitted you not only to live by
yourselves, but others also, according to your will.
That the Jews had now lived by their own laws under the
Roman empire, is clearer than to need demonstration. And,
the Gemarists’ being witnesses, judgment in money matters,
or in things pertaining to this life, was not taken from them
before the times of Simeon Ben Jochai. Now I would have
you tell me, whether the same things were not allowed the
4 Joseph. de Bell. lib. vi. cap. 34. [Hudson, p. 1284. 1. 44.] [vi. 6. 2.]
τ Mieros. Sanhedr. fol. 24. 2.
Ch. vi.2.] Hxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 197
Jews converted to Christianity? Let us take an example in
this Corinthian church: it consisted of Jews and Gentiles
now converted. The Jews, while they believed not, had in
their synagogues ἃ by ἼΔ the bench of three, who judged
περὶ τῶν βιωτικῶν, concerning things pertaining to this life; and
that by the permission of the Roman empire. Now they were
translated into a Christian synagogue, or congregation, and,
with them, Gentiles who believed. Was that denied them by
the Romans in a Christian congregation which was granted
them in a synagogue ?
First’, There was no persecution at all as yet raised against
the Christians by the Romans when the apostle wrote these
things: for not a few years passed before Nero brake forth
into that wickedness.
Secondly, The Romans little cared to distinguish between
a Judaizing synagogue of the Jews, and a Christianizing syna-
gogue of the Jews. And that of Gallio was as the business
was indeed, “ Look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such
matters,” Acts xviil.15. It was free for them to judge of
‘names and matters of their law.’
Therefore these Corinthians were worthy of reproof, in
whose power it was freely to exercise such judgments among
themselves ; yet, to the scandal of the gospel and the Christian
name, betook themselves to heathen courts of justice.
Ver.2: Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι of ἅγιοι τὸν κόσμον κρινοῦσι; Know
ye not that the saints shall judge the world 29) This place is
wrested to a twofold opinion. By the Fifth Monarchists
“[Chiliastis] into I know not what sense; which I would rather
you should ask them than expect from me. By others into
this opinion, that “the saints in the last judgment shail sit
together with Christ, and shall approve his judgment.” And
to this they bring those words of our Saviour, Matt. xix. 28,
Luke xxii. 30, “‘ When the Son of man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,” &e.
I wonder the verses of so illustrious and notable a subject
as that is which we now handle, and that which is now quoted,
are so much strained from their proper and genuine sense: let
me speak it by the leave of the learned. Let us first weigh
the words of our Saviour.
5. English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 753.
198 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vi. 2.
I. There is but small logical arguing in this manner, (if
those words were to be taken in that sense which they would
have,) “* Ye shall sit upon twelve thronest, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel;’ therefore all the saints shall judge
the world, as assessors with Christ in the last judgment.”
Which harshness they thus smooth over; “That® which he
said to them, he said to all those that should imitate them.”
“ Here* shall be some eminency of the apostles above the rest
of the saints.” And so very many others.
II. But Judas was present when these words were uttered
by our Saviour; and was not he to be concluded within that
number of twelve? But omitting this, there were more also
present when he said these words, who had ‘ followed him in
the regeneration ’ and if all they, and all the saints that
should be in the whole world, were to be concluded within
that privilege of sitting with Christ upon the bench, why is
the number restrained only to twelve? “ You twelve,” that is,
all saints, “shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel,” that is,
‘the whole world,’ is so thorny a gloss, that my fingers can
by no means touch it.
III. We gave the sense of the words in their place.
Namely, by ‘ Christ’s sitting in the throne of his glory,’ is
not to be understood his tribunal in the last judgment ; but
when he should come in the glory of his vengeance against
the Jewish nation, then not the persons, but the doctrine of
the twelve apostles, should judge and condemn that most
wicked nation.
And as to the opinion itself concerning the saints’ sitting
with Christ,
I. Nothing is plainer in the Scripture than that all shall
stand before the judgment seat of Christ, 2 Cor. v. 10, as well
the sheep as the goats, Matt. xxv. 32, &c. Mention indeed
is made of reigning with Christ, but nowhere of judging with
Christ in the day of judgment.
II. How little or nothing doth that sound, “ The saznts
shall approve the judgment of Christ!” Are thrones for this
to be set up, that those that sit upon them should approve
the judgment? The very devils and damned themselves shall
not otherwise choose but acknowledge his justice.
t Leusden’s edition, vol. il. p. 894. u Primasius. x Beza.
Ch. νἱ. 2.7] Hxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 199
III. And what, I pray, is this manner of arguing? ‘ Saints,
in the last day, shall approve the judgment and sentence of
Christ: therefore ye are able to judge concerning those things
which pertain to this life ?”
We therefore make no doubt that the sense of these words,
Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? most plainly
is this; ‘ Know ye not that Christians shall be magistrates,
and judges in the world?’ Which most clearly appears by
these observations :
I. The word ἅγιοι, saints, in the verse before, denotes all
Christians, as opposed to infidels not professing Christianity.
But that all these shall judge the world with Christ, the
espousers of that opinion will not acknowledge: and then let
a reason be given why they word in this verse is to be taken
in a different and stricter sense than the same word is in the
verse aforegoing.
II. The apostle speaks as of a thing known and confessed ;
Οὐκ οἴδατε, Know ye not? But whence was this known, or to
be known, that Christians should be magistrates, and judges
of the world? Most easily and most plainly out of Dan. vil.
18, 27: where when the four heathen monarchies which had
so long ruled the world under their tyranny fell, at length
the rule, and dominion, and empire under the whole heaven,
was to be translated to the people of the saints of the
Most High. In what sense and in what latitude the word
saints is to be taken, one may learn from a very plain anti-
thesis in that chapter. The rule, and the dominion, and
empire under the whole heaven was before belonging to hea-
thens : but under the reign of Christ it was the saints’, that
is, the Christians’.
III. This sense agrees very well with the apostle’s argu-
ment: “ Think it not unlawful to decide among yourselves
such differences as arise among yourselves; and by flying to
heathen tribunals, do not bring a reproach upon the gospel:
for consider what is foretold by Daniel, which ye know well
enough, namely, that the saznts, that is, the Christians, shall
hereafter possess the dominion and government of the whole
world, as now a long while the heathens have possessed and
do possess it. If they shall one day be endued with a right
Υ English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 754.
200 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. vi. 3, 4.
of governing, certainly you yourselves may determine of con-
tentions now.
IV. That which is said by the Apocalyptic, chap. xx. 4,
agrees with the sense of this place: that when Christ had
bound Satan, he should no more deceive the Gentiles as he
had done before, by idols, oracles, &e. Thrones are set up,
and judgment is given unto them who sit upon them, that
Js, a power and authority of judging, and ruling, and exer-
cising magistracy.
Ver. 3: Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν; Know ye not
that we shall judge angels 9] He saith not, as he did before,
The saints shall judge angels, but we shall judge them. By
angels, all confess devils to be understood. But certainly all
saints, (aceording to the latitude of that word in the verse
foregoing,) that is, all that profess Christianity, shall not judge
devils. Nor is this judging of angels to be understood in the
last day. But the apostle speaks of the ministers of the gos-
pel, himself, and others, who by the preaching of the gospel
and the name of Christ should spoil the devils of their oracles
and idols, should deprive them of their worships, should drive
them out of their seats, and strip them of their dominion.
Thus would God subdue the whole world under Christian
power; that Christian magistrates should judge men, and
ministers of the gospel, devils: and do not you now judge
among yourselves of some trivial differences ?
Ver. 4%: Βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια" Judgments of things per-
taining to this life.| How judgments among the Jews were
distinguished into MVD 337 pecuniary judgments, and °F
MW] capital judgments, every one knows. Whether κριτήρια
βιωτικὰ, judgments of things pertaining to this life, and 33°74
MI" pecuniary judgments, are the same, we do not dispute:
certainly under pecuniary judgments, as they are opposed to
capital judgments, are comprised all judgments below eapital.
Hence is that which we observe elsewhere; “ Capital judg-
ments were taken away from Israel forty years before the de-
struction of the Temple+.” And “ pecuniary judgments were
taken away from Israel in the days of Simeon Ben Jochai>.”
Τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ: Who are least esteemed in
% TLeusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 895. ἃ Hieros. Sanhedr. fol. 24. 2.
Ὁ Ibid. col. 1.
Ch. vi.4.] | Hvercitations upon 1 Hpist. Corinth. 201
the church.| 1. To interpret this word here for those that
are most vile, or most contemptible, which some versions do, is
certainly somewhat hard and improper. What! needy per-
sons, and sich as seek their living by alms or hard labour, to
make them judges! Whence should such have skill to judge,
or be at leisure for it? How apt might they be to consult
rather their own gain than just judgment? And who would
not despise such judges? The word therefore, ἐξουθενημένους,
least esteemed, is not to be referred to the lowest of the com-
mon people, but to the lowest of the order of judges.
II. That* order had these degrees in the Jewish benches;
according to the custom and disposition of which it is very
likely the apostle speaks :
1. There was the great Sanhedrim, consisting of seventy-one
elders.
2. There was the Sanhedrim of three-and-twenty, in cities
of more note.
3. There was ἃ bw ‘ta the bench of three, in every syna-
gogue.
4. There was 1219 bw ‘72 the authorized (or authentic)
bench.
5. There was (IMINO {TRwW ‘33 the bench not authorized ;
ἐξουθενημένος, not authentic.
III. We distinguish, first, between wow bay Δ the
bench of three, appointed in every synagogue, and TT 13 a2
the authorized bench, however consisting also of three men.
For the bench of three in every synagogue consisted of three
elders, duly and by imposition of hands preferred to elder-
ship. But that bench which we style authorized consisted
not always of men promoted by ordination to eldership, but
often of men receiving authority to judge in such or such
matters by some special patent granted them by the San-
hedrim. It consisted for the most part of OWaN fellows of
the wise men; men learned indeed, and scholars, but such as
were not yet elected into the order and rank of elders.
And the duties of the pra mumchin, the authorized bench,
was different from the duties and offices of the Triumviral
bench. This bench was to judge of money matters, of wrongs,
&e. That, namely the mumchin, was to judge of the firstborn
© English folio edition, vol. il. Ὁ. 755:
202 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vi. 4.
of cattle to be offered to the Lord, whether they were without
spot or no: of¢ women’s charms to be worn or not on the
sabbath : of the knives of the butcher priests, whether lawful
or not: and of divers things of that nature.
IV. When we rendered those words pM {TNW 0)
the bench not authentic, we meant it so called, not that the
judgments and determinations of that bench were of no value,
but that that bench received not its authority from the San-
hedrim, but was chosen by them between whom the contro-
versy depended.
“ Rabh Nachmanf saith, A widow,” (if she would sell some-
what of her dowry,) “hath no need pray by ΞΞ of the
bench of the authorized; but hath need MAYAN by ‘3 of
the bench of idiots,” or private men. Maimonidess citing these
words writes thus; “ A widow, whether she became a widow
after marriage, or after espousal, is bound by oath, and sells
a piece of land of her husband’s” (for her maintenance),
“either in the court of the mumchin, the authorized, or in
pm JUNW the court of those that are not authorized ; now
that court or bench is, when three men are present that are
honest and skilful in valuing a piece of land.”
To this very ordinary bench among the Jews, the apostle
seems to have respect in this place, and to prescribe it to the
Corinthians for a means of ending their differences which was
easy, common, and void of cost and charges.
The bench of the mumchin one may not unfitly call τοὺς
αὐθεντημένους, such as were deputed by authority: this bench
consisting of PMID JOXw those that were not mumchin, he
calls ἐξουθενημένους, not vile or contemptible, but such as were
not authorized.
He exhorteth, therefore, that if at any time suits arise
among them concerning pecuniary, or other matters, they by
no means run to heathen courts, but rather choose some pri-
vate men among themselves as judges and arbitrators in such
matters.
pmo ΤΌ ΩΣ mim om pecuniary” judgments may
be by three private men, pw ‘yy mbam min judg-
4 See Beracoth, fol. 48. 1. Ξ In niwn cap. 17.
© Schab. fol. 57, &c. h Sanhedr. fol. 3. 1.
f Bava Mezia, fol. 32. 1.
Ch. vi.4.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 203
ments of things taken away and damages by the three authorized.
“Thei precept of pulling off the shoe of the husband’s bro-
ther requires three judges MUVT4 inwow Ἴ ἘΝ, although
those three be private men.” And Rambam upon the place,
DDI js NTT private* men, that is, not they that are
the wise men. And Rabbi Solomon; Such who were not of
the bench of the elders in their city ;” and yet in that case
they might be judges.
They who were to judge in that affair were called O°)
elders by God, Deut. xxv. g: “ Then shall his brother’s wife
come unto him in the presence of the elders,” &e. And by the
Talmudists they are called ἡ) judges; and yet might be
private men.
The same Fathers of the Traditions speak many things of
the plaintiff and defendant choosing themselves judges or
umpires to decide their differences ; and that both parties be
bound to submit themselves to their sentence, although it be
a form of judging not altogether according to the form of the
statute. For example’s sake, three judges were required to
determine concerning pecuniary suits, and they by canon and
statute, such as were made elders or presbyters by lawful
ordination. But the contending parties might, if they would,
choose themselves only one such arbitrator or judge; or three
private men, and not elders. ‘“ The! Rabbins deliver; pecu-
niary judgments are by three. 7 ΠΣ anon mT ON
sprp ἼΠΌΝ But if he be authorized, he may judge alone.
Rabh Nachman saith, As I judge alone of pecuniary matters.
And go saith R. Chaija, As I judge alone of pecuniary mat-
ters.” Yea, if he be chosen by the contending persons he
may judge alone: for this hath obtained, ον ΞΡ ON
If they take upon themselves, or undertook to submit themselves
to the judgment of that one™ elder, or those three private
persons, they must submit, and the judgment was good.
Of this matter both Talmuds treat largely enough in the
tract Sanhedrim*.
Out of the Babylonian take these passages in the place now
alleged : “ Rabh Nachman judged, and erred in his judgment.
i Jevamoth, fol. 101.1. m English folio edit., vol. 11. p.756.
k Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 896. n Cap. 1.
1 Sanhedr. fol. 5.1.
204 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch vi. 12.
He came therefore to Rabh Joseph, of whom he heard these
words: OSwn wb Ὑπὸ prbayp os Uf they have taken
upon them (or undertaken) to stand to thy judgment, thou art
not obliged to the payment of the damage,” &c. And a little
after; ‘“* Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, swow2 pw
Dw Mw) Judgment is by three, and arbitration, or recon-
ciliation, by two. And better is the force of reconciliation
than the force of judgment: for when two judge, the parties
contending may depart from their sentence: but when two
arbitrators compose the difference, the contenders cannot
depart from their sentence.” 'The reason of each is, because
two judges were not a just bench. If therefore they would
judge according to their office, their judgment was of no
avail; but if they were particularly chosen by the contending
parties for arbitrators, it stood. For as the Gloss, ‘The con-
tending parties cannot depart from the sentence of two who
compose the difference, for they choose them.”
Out of the Jerusalem Talmud°® this passage: “ R. Abhu
sat judging alone at Cesarea. His scholars said to him, Did
not Rabbi teach us this, That none should judge alone? He
answered them, When ye shall see me sitting alone, and yet
shall come to me, ye are like them who take a judge to
themselves.”
Ver. 12: Πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, &e. All things are lawful for
me, δ.) The apostle now passeth to another subject, and
treats underhand [facite] against that plague that got too
much ground in the church, even the wicked heresy of the
Nicolaitans, which persuaded the eating of things offered to
idols and fornication.
I. He that should deny the sect of the Nicolaitans to have
taken its name from Vicolas, one of the seven deacons, would
seem certainly to go against all antiquity: and yet the an-
cients themselves do not sufficiently agree about the matter.
Go to the authors, and you will find them differing whether
the heresy sprang from an action of Nicolas, or from some
saying of his. What if it came from neither? But that the
name of the sect comes from the word mba Nicolah, which
signifies Let us eat. For who knows not that the Hebrew word
DIN) might pass into Papp among the Chaldees? And when
Ὁ Fol. 18.1.
Ch. vi.16.] Ewercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. > 205
nothing was more ancient among those very wicked men than
mutually to exhort one another to eat things offered to idols,
saying to each other, and to others also, as we may guess,
story Let us eat, how very fitly might they be called hence
Nicolaitans by the orthodox ! "DA byssy ΩΝ saying?, Let
us eat flesh.
II. Whencesoever the name of the sect comes, one can
scarce say whether the sect itself were more to be abominated
or more to be wondered at. For when the synod of Jeru-
salem had very lately decreed against eating things offered to
idols and fornication, (Acts xv,) it is a matter of astonishment
‘that presently a sort of men should spring up, and they such
as professed the gospel, who should oppose them with all bold-
ness, and excite others with all industry and endeavour to eat
things offered to idols, and to commit fornication.
III. Besides that those naughty wretches used and abused
the pretence of Christian liberty in the doing of these most
wicked actions, they invented arguments fitted to conceal
their wickedness and to defend their boldness; which the
apostle reflects on in order.
The first is that πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν" all things are lawful for
me. Which although Paul might very well say concerning
himself, “ All things are lawful for me,’ as he doth, chap.
x. 23; yet he seems secretly to whisper their very words and
argumentation: to which he also answereth, “ But all things
are not expedient: but I will not be brought under the power
of any.”
The second is, “" The belly is appointed for meats.” Things
offered to idols are meats; ergo, he answereth, ‘‘ God shall
destroy both itd and them.” ‘Therefore care is especially to
be taken of the soul, not of those things which shall perish.
And be it granted that the belly is for meats, but yet “ the
body is not for fornication, but for the Lord.”
Ver. τότ: σονται yap, φησὶν, of δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν" Kor two,
saith he, shall be one flesh.| ‘And’ they two shall be one
flesh ; INN WW. DMPIWW OD namely, in that place where
they make only one flesh.’ Which is an apter gloss than you
would take it to be at first sight ; and to which the apostle
P Targ. in Isa. xxii. 13. t English folio edit., vol. il. p.757-
& Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 897. 5. Bereshith Rabb. sect. 18.
206 * Hebrew and Talnudical (Ch. vii. 3, 5-
most plainly hath respect in this place. Those words in
Moses regard a just marriage, but the apostle bends it to
carnal copulation with a harlot. Whence it is necessary to
take the words of Moses in this sense: “Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they two (only) shall be one flesh: that is, they
between themselves only shall be carnally coupled, and not
with any other man or any other woman.”
CHAP... VEL
Ver. 3: Τὴν ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν" Due benevolence.| What
is wont to be understood here is known well enough. For
although the word εὔνοια includes all mutual offices of living
together, you see to what the apostle applies it, ver. 5; and
that not without reason, when the Jewish masters seriously
prescribed many ridiculous things of this matter; sometimes
defining the appointed times of lying with the wife, sometimes
allowing the vow of abstinence. Modesty forbids to relate
their trifles; I had rather the reader should go to them him-
self than defile our paper with them. Only these few things
we cannot but produce, that a reason may in some measure
appear why the apostle treats of this matter:
* Lying with the wife, concerning which mention is made
in the law, is this: gentlemen, who neither exercise merchan-
dise, nor any other work, every day; workmen, twice a week ;
scholars of the wise men, every sabbath-eve.”
Ver. 5: Μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, &e. Defraud ye not one
the other, &c.| ‘* He" that by a vow constrains his wife from
his bed, according to the school of Shammai, let him do it for
two weeks; according to the school of Hillel, for one only.”
Rambam upon the place writes thus: “ Let him keep this
his vow for one week only. But if he will keep it longer, let
him put her away and give her dowry. But they say, Let
the scholars go forth to learn the law, even without the per-
mission of their wives, for thirty days. These, indeed, are
the words of R. Eliezer. But according to the wise men, it is
lawful for two or three years: and the tradition is according
to the wise men.”
τ Chetubb. cap. 5. hal. 6. ἃ Ibid.
Ch. vii.6.] Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 207
You have examples of some that far exceeded these bounds,
in the Gemara at the place alleged ; which see.
Rambam concludes (concerning the common people),
“ Know thou that it is in the power of the wife to retain her
husband from going to sea, or into the army, unless it be
near at hand; lest she might be defrauded of her due bed.
She may also restrain him from passing from one work to
another, lest her bed be thereby diminished; the study of the
law only excepted.”
Ver.6: Οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν" Not by commandment.) Συγγνώμη,
permission, and ἐπιταγὴ, command, do something answer to
those words, very usual among the Fathers of the Traditions,
maw and Fawn. But now they would have marriage en-
joined under a very severe command.
“The*x man it commanded concerning begetting and mul-
tiplying, but not the woman. And when doth the man come
under this command? From the age of sixteen or seventeen
years. But if he exceeds twenty years without marrying, be-
hold he violates and renders an affirmative ¥ precept vain.
But if he be studious in the law, and conversant in it, and if
he fears marriage, lest the care of providing for his wife hinder
his study in the law, he may still tarry; because he that is
employed in the precepts is free from that precept : much
more he that converseth in the study of the law. He whose
mind is always taken up in the study of the law, as Ben Azzai,
and he that is intent upon it all his days, if he marrieth not
a wife, in his hand is no iniquity. But if affection prevail
upon him, let him marry a wife, although he have no children,
lest he fall into evil thoughts.” ‘ Letz not a man refrain
himself from generation and multiplying, unless he hath chil-
dren already.” The Gemara upon this place thus, “ If he
have children, let him refrain himself from generation and
multiplying ; but from marrying a wife let him not refrain
himself. It is forbid him to be without a wife, because it is
said, It is not good for man to be alone.” And “ Whoso-
ever* gives not himself to generation and multiplying is all
one with a murderer. He is as though he diminished from
the image of God,” &c.
The apostle, therefore determines against the Jewish
x Maimon. in iw cap. 15. 2 Jevamoth, cap. 6. hal. 6.
Y English folio edit., vol. ii. p.758. a [bid. fol. 63. 2.
208 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vii. g, 10.
schools, that a man is not bound by the law to marriage, but
that he is in his own power in this affair, to contract himself
or not, as he finds himself continent or not. They said, It is»
a command that every one marry a wife; but de saith, “1
have not a command.”
Ver. 9: Κρεῖσσον γάρ ἐστι γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι: It ts better
to marry than to burn.| That you may apprehend the sense
of the word πυροῦσθαι, to burn, hear a story; ‘ Some captive
women were brought to Nehardea, and disposed in the house,
and in the upper room (ὑπερώῳ) of Rabh Amram. sypur
Wm npd SANT They took away the ladder,’ or the stairs
(that the women might not go down, for they were shut up
there until they should be ransomed). “As one of them
passed by the window, the light of her great beauty shined
into the house. Amram” (taken with the woman’s beauty)
“set up the stairs again, which ten men scarcely could do,”
(that he might go up to the woman). ταν, NY 5
TWD NAVI When he was now got to the middle of the
stairs they broke, (he stopped, struggling with that evil
affection to overcome it;) Ὁ A NY 7) NOD and
with a loud voice cried out, ‘ Fire, fire, in the house of Amram.
(The Gloss saith, This he did, that the neighbours flocking
thither, he might desist from his purpose and from that affec-
tion out of shame.) ‘The Rabbins run to him, and” (seeing
nothing of fire or flame) “say, ‘Thou hast disgraced us.’ To
whom he replied, ‘It is better that ye be disgraced in the house
of Amram in this world, than that ye be disgraced by me in
the world to come.’ He adjured that evil affection to go out
of him, and from thence it went out as a pillar of fire. To
which he said, ‘ Thou art fire, and I am flesh; yet for all that
I have prevailed against thee.’ ”
Ver. 10: Οὐκ ἐγὼ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Κύριος: Not I, but the Lord.|
And on the contrary, ver. 12, ἐγὼ λέγω, οὐχ ὁ Κύριος" I speak,
not the Lord.
I. Weigh first that distinction very usual in the schools,
between S72 @ teat of Scripture, and SAAD an opinion.
“ Deathe by the sword is worse than death by the plague.
> Leusden’s edition, vol.ii. p.898. R. sub ν. Mw col. 1860. Light-
© Kiddushin, fol. 81. 1. foot has dilatavit pedes. |
4 [This is Buxtorf’s rendering— e Bava Bathra, fol. 8. 2
difracta fuit (scala) in Lex. T. et
Ch. vii.10.] Hwercitations upon τ Epist. Corinth. 209
2 RIID NOW MVS SY ROS MVD Lf you will, I
will produce a text of Scripture” (to prove this). “17 you
will, I will produce reason, or my opinion. If you will, I will
produce an opinion. That renders one abominable, but not
this. If you will, I will produce Scripture; ‘ Precious in the
eyes of the Lord is the death (the plague) of his saints.’
Famine is worse than the sword, ΠΟ NON MVD oN
Tf you will, I will produce an opinion; Famine afflicts a long
while, the sword not. SAP Mya cs Lf you will, J will pro-
duce Scripture ; ‘It is better for them that die by the sword,
than that die by famine.’” Ande “a burnt-offering that is
-killed not under its proper notion, the blood of it is not to be
sprinkled under a notion that is not proper. NOW MV ἫΝ
NW NOS MYA IW WD Lf you will, [ will produce my
opinion or reason. If you will, I will produce a text of Scrip-
ture.” And very many instances of that nature.
II. And now compare the words of the apostle: ‘“ These
things J say not, but the Lord :” that is, this is not my bare
opinion, but so saith the Scripture. And on the contrary,
“These things 7 say, not the Lord :” that is, This is my opin-
ion, although there be not some text of Scripture which
saith so in plain words. Thus he explains himself, chap. ix. 8,
“Say I these things, and not the law?”
Tuvatka ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι" Let not the wife depart
Jrom her husband.| Nor without weighty reason doth he ad-
monish concerning this thing also; since both among Jews
and Gentiles the opinion was too loose concerning the firmness
of the marriage bond: and more loose among the Jews than
among the Gentiles.
I. Think, first of the toleration of Paws among them;
which take in their words: “If any marry a young maid,
and she afterward will not have him for her husband, she may
put him away and depart from him; and there is no need of
a bill of divorce.” Hence this is the form PSD ὯΔ ofa bill
of this kind of putting away (when the wife put away her hus-
band) if it were demanded:
e Zevachin, fol. 2. 1. nitatis sue alicui desponsata, postea,
f English folio edit., vol. ii. p.759. cum ad annos maturitatis venit, re-
& [pwn Denegatio, from 82 nuit ypsi nubere. Buxtorf Lex. T.
denegare. Dicitur apud Talm. in et R. sub. voc. ]
" = Η Ξ Ι͂.Σ 7
specie, de ea que in annis minoren- ἃ Maimon. Gerush. cap. 11.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. P
210 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vii. 11.
“Tn the day N., of the week N., of the month W,, of the
year N. W., the daughter of V., put away before us and
said: ‘My mother or my brethren deceived me, and wedded
me, or betrothed me, when I was a young maid to NV., the son
of N. But I now reveal my mind before you that I will not
have him,” We.
II. Among them also there was departing from each other
by mutual consent: “Αἱ good man had a good wife; but
because they had not children 7} MAN My WA they mutually
put away one another. That good man married a bad wife,
and she made him bad. That good woman married a bad
husband, and she made him good.”
They allow also the same license to the heathen. “R. Jo-
chanank saith, The sons of Noah have not divoree, but WW)
ry ON ΓῚ they put away one another.
III. To omit the departure of the wife from the husband
for the causes of lust, as Herodias departed from Philip to
be married to Herod, and Drusilla from Aziz, and married
Felix!, a perverse wife might compel her husband to put her
away. ‘ A™ wife which refuseth to lie with her husband is
called MIN rebellious ; and they demand of her, Why she
is so rebellious". If she answers, ‘I despise him, and cannot
endure his bed:’ they compel him to put her away for a
time.” Yea, R. Jochanan?® saith, “A wife may put away her
husband.” 3
Those departures, therefore, the apostle altogether forbids.
And when, ver. 11, he saith, ἐὰν δὲ χωρισθῇ, but and if she de-
part, he doth not so much tolerate them, as supposes them to
happen, and provides against them all, as much as may be, by
the following rules: ‘ Let her remain unmarried, or be recon-
ciled to her husband.”
Ver.11: Τῷ ἀνδρὶ καταλλαγήτω" Be reconciled to her husband. |
Compare Deut. xxiv. 4, “‘ Her former husband, which sent her
away, may not take her again to be his wife.” For the bond
which was there made is not dissolved here. DOAN VA
“ Her makes it void: It is made void: they are the words of
i Beresh. Rabb. sect. 17. n Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 899.
k Id. sect. 18. © Beresh. Rabb. in the place last
1 Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c.5. [xx. quoted.
7A Ρ Jevamoth, fol. go. 2.
m Maimon. in ows eap. 14.
Ch. vii. 14.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 911]
Rabbi.” (The Gloss is; ‘The husband sends a bill of divorce
to the wife: if either he himself afterward goes to his wife, or
sends a messenger to her, saying, ‘ The bill of divorce, which
I sent to thee, let it stand for nothing, it is nothing’”) “A
tradition. In former times he compelled the bench in an-
other place, who would make void the bill, and made not the
thing known to his wife. Gamaliel the elder appointed that
they should not do this; because sometimes the wife, not
knowing of the withdrawing of the bill, marrieth another, and
so hath bastard children.”
Behold καταλλαγὴ, a reconciliation, even after a divorce (but
the apostle speaks not in this place of divorce): and yet the
Jews by their practice showed that they thought the bond of
marriage was loosed by any divorce ; for they admitted second
marriages.
Ver.14: Ta τέκνα ὑμῶν νῦν ἅγιά ἐστιν Now are your children
holy.| ᾿Ακάθαρτα, unclean, and ἅγια, holy, denote not children
unlawfully begotten and lawfully begotten, but heathenism
and Christianism. There is indeed this tradition among the
Jews: “ A4 son by unlawful wedlock” [that is, unlawful by
consanguinity] “is a son of the man in all regards, and is
to be reputed for an Israelite, although he be misbegotten.
WA IDR MPT PD Jai But a son begotten of a heathen woman
is not his son.” Where the Gloss, “ He is not called the son
of the man, but the son of the woman.”
But the present discourse of the apostle turns not upon this
hinge, namely, whether a son, sprung from parents, whereof
one was a Christian, the other a heathen, be a legitimate issue ;
but whether it be a Christian issue. For it is sufficiently
known that the word D°wW ἽΡ ἅγιοι, holy, is very frequently
taken for those that profess Christianity : and so the word
MW holiness, in the Talmudists, is taken in a like sense.
* A* husbands and wife, being made proselytes, are sepa-
rated from each other ninety days, that distinction may be
made ΓΙ ΡΞ yy sow yu MWA. PwIw yw Pa
between an issue born in holiness and an issue born out of holi-
ness.” “Thet daughter of a proselytess made a proselytess
with her mother, if she play the whore (after espousal) is to
4 Maimon. Issure Biah, c. 12. 5. Jevamoth, fol. 42. 1.
τ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 760. t Chetubb. fol. 44.1.
P2
212 Hebrew and Talmudical — [{Ch. vii. 18, 19.
be strangled. Twa aa nop. sow an ann
But if she conceive without holiness, and bring forth in holiness,
then she is to be stoned.” Again"; “ A proselytess which
was married to a proselyte, and they beget a son, 1?°DN
ΓΙ ΡΞ ANP PAI although both his conception and his
birth be in holiness, yet it is permitted him to marry a bastard
woman.,””
You see at first sight what that expression in holiness means.
An offspring born out of holiness was an offspring born while the
parents were yet heathens; within holiness, when they were
now made proselytes. In the same sense the apostle; ‘* Your
children are born in holiness, that is, within Christianity, if ~
either father or mother be Christian: and the children them-
selves are holy, that is, Christians.”
The heathens were reckoned by the Jews for unclean; and
so unclean indeed, that they could not contract uncleanness,
no, not from the most unclean thing, a sepulchre*. Hence
heathen children were to them ἀκάθαρτα, unclean, and the
children of Jews ἅγια, holy. To which sense, very well known
to the nation, the apostle aliudes in these words.
Ver.18: Μὴ ἐπισπάσθω" Let him not become uncircumeised. |
In Talmudic language, ιν Tw" bay, let him not draw
his foreskin. ‘ Lety circumcision be four or five times re-
peated, if any one be so often Twa ἐπισπασθεὶς, drawn, un-
circumcised.’ Again, “ There? were many in the days of
Ben Cozba, ὈΠῸΝ ἼΣΟΣ who had drawn over the foreskin,
that. were again circumcised.” Anda, JOY PW WIN
sno «A tradition. He whose foreskin is drawn over is to be
circumcised again. The interpretation of the word Ww
(ἐπισπασθεὶς, drawn) is this; If, after he had been circum-
cised, the foreskin is drawn over, either by men, or by some
sickness. There were many in the days of Ben Cozba who
had been circumcised, DIWWA DDwWwW whose foreskin they
drew over by force in the city Betar. But Ben Cozba pre-
vailed, and reigned two years and a half. And they were
circumcised again in his days.”
Ver. 19: Ἢ περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστι’ Circumcision is nothing.)
ἃ Maimon. Issure Biah, cap. 15. z Hieros. Jevamoth, fol. 9.1.
x Hieros. Pesach. fol. 36. 2. a ἢ, Nissim in Jevamoth, fol.
Υ Beresh. Rabb. fol. 46. 428: 2.
Ch. vii. 19.] Evxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 213
Among many things which may here be spoken, we will ob-
serve only» two; one, from the very practice of the Jews, the
other, from the chief end of cirewmeision.
ΤΙ You will wonder perhaps, reader, when you hear that
some Jews always went uncircumcised ; yea, that some priests
not circumcised ministered at the altar, and that without the
complaint of any, and indeed without any fault. But the
Fathers of the Traditions themselves do confess this. Very
frequent mention is made in the Talmudists of bs) bangers
an uncircumcised Israelite, and Ly iP) an uncircumcised
priest.
« R. Jochanan¢ in the name of R. Benaiah saith, ‘ They
sprinkle by) Ὀμ Ὁ by upon an uncircumeised Israelite.’”
“ Alld the sacrifices, whose blood is received by an alien, δὴν»
the uncircumcised priest lamenting, ἅσο. are not approved. ΒΕ.
Simeon saith, ‘They are approved.’?” And, “R. Lazare in
the name of R.Haninah saith, ‘ There is a story bay mee!
of an uncircumcised priest, who sprinkled blood at the altar ;
and his sprinklings were approved.” “ΑἸ uncircumcised
priest is a priest whose brethren died by circumcision :”
andg, “an uncireumcised Israelite is, whose brethren died
of circumcision: and yet he is an Israelite, although wncircum-
cised. For the Israelites are not bound to perform the pre-
cepts where death will certainly follow: for it is said, ‘ Laws,
which if a man shall observe them he shall Jive in them,’ not
that he die in them.”
Hence if the first, second, third son should die by circum-
cision, those that were born after were not circumcised, but
were always uncircumcised. and yet Israelites in all respects,
priests in all respects. “ R. Nathan® saith, ‘I travelled to
Czesarea of Cappadocia ; and there was a woman there who
had brought forth male children which had died of cireum-
cision, the first, the second, the third: they brought the
fourth to me, and I looked upon him, and saw not in him
the blood of the covenant. He advised them to permit him
a little while, though not circumcised; and they permitted
him,” &c.
b Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. goo. f Gloss in Zevachin.
© Hieros. Pesach. fol. 36. 2. Β΄ Aruch ex Cholin.
4 Zevachin, cap. 2. hal. 1. h Hieros. Jevamoth, fol. 7. 4.
e Hieros. in the place before.
214 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vii. 19.
Now', Jew, tell me, whether circumcision is any thing,
especially whether it be of so much account, either to justi-
fication or to sanctification, as you esteem it, when an
Israelite might be a true Israelite, and a priest a true priest,
without circumcision.
II. Circumcision is nothing in respect of the time; for now
it is vanished, the end of it, for which it had been instituted,
being accomplished. That end the apostle shows in those
words, Rom. iv. 11, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν
τῇ axpoBvotia® a seal of the righteousness of the faith in uncir-
cumcision. But I fear the words are not sufficiently fitted by
most versions to the end of circumcision, and the scope of
the apostle; while they insert something of their own. The
French translation thus; “σθαι de la justice de foi, laquelle
il avoit durant le prépuce:” A seal of righteousness of faith
which he had during uncircumeision. The Italian thus; ‘‘ Segno
della giustitia della fede, laquale fu nella incirconcisione :” A
seal of the righteousness of the faith, which was without circum-
cision. The Syriac reads, AMIO ΓΤῚ SOINIT NoOnM,
And a seal of the righteousness of his faith. The Arabic, “ Of
the righteousness of faith, jS5 stb which was im uneireum-
cision.” Others to the same sense; ‘as though circumcision
were given to Abraham for a sign of that righteousness which
he had while as yet he was uncircumcised ;’ which we deny
not in some sense to be true; but we believe circumcision
especially looks far another way.
Give me leave to render the words thus; “ And he received
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the
faith which should hereafter be in uncircumcision:” I say,
‘ Which should be,’ not ‘ which had been ; not which had been
to Abraham as yet uncircumcised, but which should be to his
seed uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles that should here-
after imitate the faith of Abraham.
For mark well upon what occasion circumcision was ap-
pointed to Abraham, laying before your eyes the history of
it, Gen. xvil.
First, This promise was made to him, “ Thou shalt be the
father of many nations,” [in what sense, the apostle explains
in that chapter ;] and then a double seal is subjoined to esta-
i English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 761.
»
Ch. vii. 23.] Ewercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. Q15
blish the thing, viz. the changing of the name ‘ Abram’ into
‘Abraham ;’ and the institution of circumcision, ver. 4, “ Be-
hold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of
many nations.” Why is his name called ‘ Abraham?’ For
the sealing of his promise, ‘Thou shalt be a father of many
nations.’ And why was this circumcision appointed him! For
sealing the same promise, ‘Thou shalt be a father of many
nations.’ So that this may be the sense of the apostle, very
agreeable to the institution of circumcision; “He received
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith,
which hereafter the uncircumceision (or the Gentiles) was to
have and obtain.”
Abraham had a double seed; a natural seed, that of the
Jews; and a faithful seed, that of the believing Gentiles.
The natural seed is signed with the sign of circumcision, first
indeed for the distinguishing itself from all other nations,
while they were not as yet the seed of Abraham; but espe-
cially in memory of the justification of the Gentiles by faith,
when at last they were his seed. Therefore upon good reason,
circumcision was to cease when the Gentiles should be brought
in to the faith, because then it had attained to its last and
chief end; and from thenceforth 7 περιτομὴ οὐδέν, circumcision
as nothing.
Ver. 23*: Μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων" Be ye not the servants
of men.| I ask whether the apostle speaks these words
directly, and as his own sense? or by way of objection, to
which he answereth in the verse following? The Jews were
wont thus to object concerning themselves, by reason of their
liberty obtained by the redemption out of Egypt; so that
they would not endure by any means to be called “ not free,’
John vill. 33. ““ Rabban! Jochanan Ben Zaceai said, The
blessed Lord saith, The ear which heard my voice upon mount
Sinai, at what time I said, For the children of Israel are my
servants, and not the servants of servants, but it goes and
obtains to itself the lord, let that ear be bored.”
Perhaps these new Christians that were of a servile con-
dition laboured under this pride, not as yet instructed con-
cerning the true sense of evangelical liberty. Or this scruple
stuck with them, Whether it were lawful for a Christian to
k Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. gor. 1 Kiddush. fol. 22. 2.
216 Hee and Talmudical [Ch. vil. 26.
serve a heathen, an atheist, an idolater, &c. Such questions
are moved by the masters, “‘ Whether an Israelite is to be
sold for a servant to a heathen? Whether an Israelite that is
a servant is to be pressed with the same service as a Ca-
naanite ?”’
If the apostle speaks directly, he does not discourse con-
cerning servants particularly, but of all Christians in general.
And it is far from his intention to take away the relation that
is between masters and servants; but he admonisheth all
Christians that they serve not the evil lusts and wills of men,
but him that redeemed them with a price.
Ver. 26™: Διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην" For the present neces-
sity.| And by and by, ver. 29, ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος, τὸ
λοιπόν ἐστι, the time is short, it remaineth. The Corinthians
inquired of the apostle by a letter in the case of marriage, as
it seems by his answer :
I. Concerning marriages between a believer and an unbe-
liever, whether they were to be continued or not continued.
II. Concerning the marriages of virgins or single persons.
But now, how a seruple should arise to them in this latter, is
somewhat obscure. Among the Jewish Christians a seruple
might arise whether it were lawful for a single man to abstain
from marriage ; because in that nation, as we have observed,
they commanded matrimony by law. But if the question
were, whether it was lawful for a virgin or a single man to
contract matrimony, (for the apostle answereth οὐχ ἥμαρτες,
thou hast not sinned, as though it were asked rather, whether
it were lawful to marry, than whether it were lawful not to
marry,) then you will scarcely conjecture whence it should
arise but ἐξ ἐνεστώσης ἀνάγκης, fron the present necessity.
Our apostle teacheth, that some forbade marriage, 1 Tim.
iv.3. But under what pretence? Hither under this, that
they babbled that marriage opposed the purity of the gospel,
as Saturninus in Irenzeus "; or that they avoided marriages
for those calamities that hung over them. ‘They forbid
marriage (saith the apostle), and command to abstain from
meats.” Hear the Gemarists a little.
“From°® the time that the second temple was destroyed,
m English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 762. n Tobi: Οὐ 2:
ο Bava Bathra, fol. 60. 7.
Ch. viii. 1, 4.] Ewercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 217
Pharisees (separatists) were multiplied in Israel, who ate not
flesh nor drank wine. To whom R.Josua, Why, Ὁ my sons,
do ye not eat flesh nor drink wine? And they answered,
Should we eat flesh of which we were wont to offer on the
altar, and now it is perished? And shall we drink wine of
which we were wont to pour out upon the altar, and now it is
ceased? When a wicked empire ruled over Israel, and decreed
rough things against them, and made the law and the precept
cease from them, and permitted them not to circumcise their
children, they said to R. Josua, It is fit that we resolve among
ourselves not to contract marriage, nor beget sons,” We.
Behold men prepared and sworn almost to perpetual ab-
stinence from marriage by reason of calamities. From the
like cause, also, I suspect some Christians might be in doubt
in the times of the apostles. Our Saviour had foretold that
those times should be very rough that went before the de-
struction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv: and that not within the
bounds of Judea only, but that “judgment should begin from
the Temple of God,” everywhere, 1 Pet. iv. 17; and “a day
of temptation should come upon the whole world,” Rev. iii. 20.
So that that prediction being known to the churches, and the
times now inclining towards those calamities, it is no wonder
if concern and care about those straits invaded the Christians,
and deterred very many single persons from marriage.
CH ASP ΟΥ̓ ΤΠῚΕ
VER. 1: Οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν: We know that we
all have knowledge.| Τνῶσις, knowledge, of which the apostle
here speaks, is the fnowledge of the liberty of the gospel; but
these words are spoken ironically: as if he had said, “It is
concluded by all, that they know sufficiently that evangelic
liberty ; and thereupon some run out into things which are
not convenient. That ‘knowledge puffeth up,’ renders men
bold, neglects the consciences of others; and he that in this
sense seems to know something, as yet knows nothing as he
ought to know.”
Ver. 4P: Οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ: An idol is nothing in the
world.| 1 render it, “ We know that there is no idol in the
world :” that is, a representation of God. Εἴδωλον, an idol,
P English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 763.
218 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. vin. το.
as the lexicographers teach, is ὁμοίωμα, a likeness, εἰκὼν, an
image, σημεῖον, a sign, xapaxtipiov4, a character, σκιοειδὲς, a
shadow. Idols indeed are in the world made of wood, stone,
gold, silver, &e.; but οὐδὲν εἴδωλον, there is no idol ; there is
no representation or figure of God, and none can be. The
apostle hitherto, as I indeed think, puts on the person of
those who made no scruple in eating things offered to idols ;
as though he had said, “ You say, ‘We know that there is
no representation of God in the world, and there is only one
God,’ &c. Therefore those graven images and those various
idols are mere figments of human mistake; and to offer sacri-
fices to them is a mere invention of men. There is nothing
sacred, nothing of religion in them, because there is no repre-
sentation of God in them. Shall we therefore, who are under
the liberty of the gospel, abstain from eating that flesh which
the foolishness of men only hath separated from common use,
and offered to stocks and stones which have nothing of God
in them, but are created only by the same human sottishness /
Ye say truth indeed, but illy applied, and ‘all have not this
knowledge.” Or if you render it, an idol is nothing in the
world, it comes to the same sense.
Ver. 10: "Ev εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον" Sitting at meat in the
idol’s temple.| Compare those passages of the Talmudists :—
PIN) MAMIND “sy Jaw “< He* that adores an idol out of
love or fear, Rabba saith, He is free: Abai saith, He is guilty.
Abai saith, He is guilty because he worships it. Rabba
saith, He is free: ps ΜῈ στρ mele ἽΝ if he take it
Sor God, he is so, he is guilty ; p's sb Ss but if he doth not,
he is not.” And a little after; “If he supposeth the idol-
temple to be the synagogue, and adore an idol, Ὁ sn
omnw, behold, his heart is towards God. ST soy
NOVIN But if he see a statue and adore it, if he take it for
God he is guilty, Mm) as doing presumptuously. But if he
takes it not for God, ΣΤ mb sb it is nothing at all.”
The Gloss there is, “ Behold, his heart is towards God;
although he know that that house is an idol-temple, and he
adores God in it, it is no crime, &c. If he see a statue such
as they are wont to set up for the picture of the king, and
4 Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 902. ¥ Sanhedr. fol. 61. 2.
Ch. vill. 11.] Haxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 219
adore it, not under the notion of an idol, but in honour of the
king, it is nothing.”
Hieronymus ἃ Sancta Fide citess this Talmudic passage in
these words: “They say in the book Sanhedrim, If any wor-
ship an idol out of love or fear, he is free: and R. Solomon
glosseth thus; By dove is understood that if any master should
ask his servant that out of love to him he would adore him:
by fear, that if any master should threaten him unless he
would. Nevertheless, R. Moses of Egypt glosseth otherwise,
saying, That by Jove is understood, if he be in love with the
beauty of the image of that idol; by fear, that if he fear the
idol should hurt him, as the worshippers of it think that it
ean profit or hurt ; and that if he adore it in such a case, he
is free.”
An excellent school, and excellent doctrine indeed! To
omit other things, mark that which prevailed also with these
Corinthians : anor! apes τὴν τ nib ON “Lf he acknow-
ledge not the idol under the notion of God, it is nothing.” And
these men said also, “‘ An idol is nothing: therefore to be in
an idol-temple, to eat things offered to idols, is nothing ; for
I own nothing of the Deity in the idol, I know it is wood or
stone,” &c. But saith the apostle,
First, “ However the idol itself be wood or stone, yet those
things which are offered to it are offered to devils,” chap.
x20. And,
Secondly, “ However you think yourself so wise as to Judge
of an idol as a matter of nothing, yet all have not so accurate
a judgment: and you, by your example, encourage others to
eat things offered to idols, even under the notion of things
offered to idols.”
Ver.11: Av ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν" For whom Christ died.]
He useth the very same argument and reason, Rom. xiv. 15.
And his words respect the quality of the person rather than
the person himself, barely considered. As though he had
said, “ For tender consciences, and trembling at the word of
God, for those that are burdened and groan under the yoke
and weight of the law, for such as sweat and pant in the ways
of the Lord, to keep faith and a good conscience; for such
5. Lib. ii. contr. Judeos, cap. 2. [Max. Bibl. Vet. Patr. De la Bigne,
Tom. xxvi. p.547 Α.]
220 Hebrew and Talmudical ᾿ { Chaaxya.
Christ died; and will you destroy such a one by your meat ?
He died to loosen those yokes, and to lighten consciences
pressed under those weights; and will you destroy such with
your meat ?”’
CHAT axe
Ver. 1: Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; Am 1 not free?| Here some
interpreters in their versions vary the order of the clauses,
and read, Am 7 not free? and then after that, “Am I not an
apostle?” moved to it hence undoubtedly, because it is greater
to be an apostle than to be free: and they supposed they
should keep true order if they proceeded from a lower degree
to ahigher. But they should have considered that Paul did
not barely treat of Christian liberty, but of apostolic liberty :
which appears also sufficiently, ver. 5. Nor could he use a
more accurate method in his business, than by first proving
himself an apostle, and then proving his apostolic liberty.
He is about to treat of his liberty, or how lawful it is for
him to require maintenance for himself, his wife and family,
if he had them, for his ministry in the gospel among the hea-
then, which Peter and the rest of the apostles did among the
Jews. It was formerly appointed" by Jewish lawyers, that
tithes were not to be required and taken of the Gentiles ;
maintenance was not to be asked from heathens; and that a
Jew should not make himself any ways beholden to a heathen.
Which so much the more also prevailed among them, because
there was not any permission in the law concerning these
things, or at least that there was deep silence in the law con-
cerning them. These matters could not but raise a contest
against him concerning his maintenance among the heathen,
while he preached the gospel to them.
Our apostle, therefore, the minister of the uncircumcision,
flies to that, namely, to defend himself by his apostolical
power among them who had raised a difference against him
about this business, ver. 3: “ Be it granted that it was
appointed by the traditional laws concerning taking no main-
tenance from heathens ; yea, though it were granted that it
were so decreed by the law of Moses; but ‘I am an apostle,’
I am free from such laws; yea it is in my power to institute
τ English folio edit., vol.ii. p. 764. ἡ Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 903.
Ch. ix. 3,13.] Hwereitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 221
this for a law to the converted heathen, that those that preach
the gospel should be sustained by the gospel.”
Οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἑώρακα ; Have I not seen Jesus Christ 9]
Paul saw the Lord twice. First, in his journey to Damascus,
when he was marked out for an apostle; secondly, in his
trance at Jerusalem, when he was marked out for the apostle
of the Gentiles, Acts xxii.21. He alone among the apostles
saw the Lord after his ascension.
Ver. 3: Ἢ ἐμὴ ἀπολογία: My apology, &c.] The apology
itself follows, ‘“‘ Have we not power,” ὅσο. unto ver. 15. The
necessity of his apology was, that he was accused by some of
receiving maintenance from heathen churches for his preach-
ing the gospel; or it was observed with a stern countenance
by some cavillers, whether he would receive it or not. Hence
it was that he applied* himself to mechanic labour, whereby
he might sustain himself and get his living: not that it was
unlawful for him to demand a livelihood of the Gentiles, but
because he would not, to stop the mouths of the Jews that
barked against him. Hence are those words, ver. 19, 20, “I
am free from all men, and yet I am become the servant of all:
to the Jews I became as a Jew,” &c. Compare 3 John, ver. 7,
*¢ They took nothing of the Gentiles.”
Ver. 13: Οἱ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ προσεδρεύοντες" They which wait
at the altar.| He distinguisheth between ἱερὰ ἐργαζομένους,
labouring about holy things, and προσεδρεύοντας τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ,
waiting at the altar. For there were some who wrought in
the holy things, besides those who served at the altar: con-
cerning whom see the tract Shekalimy. Among the rest were
they DVT MS oyonnan who picked the worms out of the
wood which was to be laid upon the altar: who being touched
and infected with some spot were not fit to minister at the
altar; but they were deputed to this office, and nourished
out of the consecrated things.
[pocedpevovtes? τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, assidentes altari, sitting at
the altar, not in the proper and strictest sense; for it was
lawful for none to sit within the court but for the king alone.
But? rather obsidentes, besieging the altar, and spread every-
where about it in the service of it: some taking away the
x English folio edit., vol. ii. p.765. 2 Middoth, cap. 2. hal. 5.
y Cap. 5. a Joma, fol. 69. 2.
229 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. πο ας 23:
ashes; some killing the sacrifice; others sprinkling the blood;
others laying the pieces of the sacrifice upon the altar, &c.
Concerning which see the tract Tamid?.
Προσεδρεύω signifies also to lay snares, which may also be
applied to that emulous diligence, wherewith they did, as it
were, lay snares for the altar; contending in former times
who should first go up thither to take away the ashes, and to
make the fire, &e.; concerning which these things are related:
“Ine former times whosoever would clear the altar of its
ashes did it (in the morning): but when many strove toge-
ther about that business, and ran and went up by W35 the
ascent of the altar, &c. There was a time when two strove
together, and ran with equal speed, and went up by the ascent
of the altar; and one thrust the other, so that he fell and his
leg was broke,” &e.
Ver. 21: Tots ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος" To them that are without
law, as without law.| He distinguished, as it seems by the
verse before, between the ‘ Jews,’ and those that are ‘ under
the law :’ which may be understood of the Jews in general,
and of the Pharisees in particular; because the Pharisees
seemed more to subject themselves to the law than the rest of
the nation. But by ἀνόμους, such as are without law, whether
he means the Sadducees, who altogether opposed the laws of
Pharisees, or whether the heathen, inquire. How he could
yield himself conformable to the heathen, it is not easy to
judge. To the Jews, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, he might
conform himself in some things without scruple, that he might
gain them: this only being understood of the Sadducees, that
his conformity is to be understood in rites, not in the heresy
about the resurrection.
Ver. 27: Μήπως ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι: Lest I should be a cast-
away.| ᾿Αδόκιμος may well render the word bape, a word very
usual among the masters; especially as it is opposed to the
word WW: for WW5 denotes δόκιμος, that is, approved, fit,
either thing or person: "D5, on the contrary, denotes ἀδόκι-
μος, not approved, not fit.
b Cap. 3. hal. 1, &c. ¢ Joma, fol. 22.1.
Ch. x.2,4.] Hwxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 223
Ci A Re x4
Ver. 2: Καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Moony éBanrivovro’ And were
all baptized unto Moscs.| They had been newly circumcised
before their going out of Egypt. For when God accuseth
them by the prophet, that they complied with the customs of
the Egyptians, and worshipped their idols, Ezek. xx. 7, 8, it
is more than probable that they neglected circumcision, as
also other of God’s appointments, and yielded themselves
conformable to the Egyptians in all their irreligious rites.
Whence, by a peculiar precept, God provided, when he insti-
tuted the Passover, that, before the eating of it, every one
should be circumcised, Exod. xii. 48: which that it was done
also is clear out of Josh. v. 5, “ All going out of Egypt were
circumcised.”
To circumcision is added baptism in the cloud and in the
sea; and the latter seal took not away the first, but super-
induced a new obligation. They were not circumcised into
Moses, but they were baptized into Moses. The Jews them-
selves confess that they were baptized at mount Sinai from
those words, Exod. xix.1o. But the apostle fetcheth the thing
higher, that he may show that the types of the gospel-sacra-
ments were both divine and also miraculous.
Ver. 4: Ἔκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας" Of that spiri-
tual Rock that followed them.| Not that the very rock in Horeb
followed them, but that streams of water, flowing from that
rock, followed them, and were gathered together into pools
wheresoever they encamped. Hence that rhetorical figure
very usual in the prophets, “1 will give in the wilderness
pools of water,” when discourse is of the watering of the
Gentiles by the gospel and the Spirit. ‘“ Duringe all the
forty years they had a well.” And the Targum of Jonathan
concerning another wellf; “ From the time that the well in
Mattanah was given them, it was made again to them brooks
that were overflowing and violent ; and again it went up unto
the tops of the mountains, and went down with them into the
valleys,” &e.
a English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 766.—Leusden’s edit., vol.ii. p. 004.
e R. Sol. in Num. xx. 2. Γ Num. xxi. 10.
294. Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. x. 8.
Ver. 8: Εἰκοσιτρεῖς χιλιάδες. Three-and-twenty thousand. |
But in Numb. xxv. it is, ““ Four-and-twenty thousand.” And
in the Talmuds; “ Thoses four-and-twenty thousand that
perished by reason of Baal-Peor,” ἄς. And “ Balaam came
to receive his reward for the four-and- -twenty thousand that
had perished.” Whence therefore i is it in Paul, “ Three-and-
twenty thousand” only?
To omit that which is not unusual in the Holy Scriptures,
when the same story is recited in two places, to bring in
somewhat different in the reckoning, either of the things or
the men or the years; and that not without the highest rea-
son; as, compare 2 Kings viii. 26 with 2 Chron. xxii. 2; and
2 Kings xxiv. 8 with 2 Chron. xxxvi.g; and very many of that
nature ; let us see what the Talmudists say of this story.
They discourse of it in divers places of the tract Sanhe-
drim' to this sense. Upon those words of God to Moses,
Ort ΝΥ 3. ΩΝ M2 “ Take all the heads of the people, and
hang them up before the sun,” they thus comment: “Take
all the princes of the people, and make them judges; that
they may slay all those that transgressed with Baal-Peor. If
the people sinned, what did the heads of the people sin?
Saith Rabh Judah, Rabh saith, God said to Moses, ‘ Divide
to them judgment-seats.’? Wherefore? Because they judge
not two in one day.” Now, Jew, find fault with Paul if you
list; and he hath wherewithal to answer you, even from your
own writers:
I. He saith not that thice-and-twenty thousand were all that
fell in the case of Baal-Peor; but he saith that ¢hree-and-
twenty thousand fell in one day.
IT. It is manifest enough that God made use of a double
vengeance against the sinners, namely, by judges, and by a
pestilence.
ITI. Buatk now their own countrymen any, “It is not law-
ful for one bench to judge two in one day.” Or be it granted
(which is granted also by their countrymen) that it is lawful
to judge and slay too, so it be by the same kind of death, how
& Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 4. and elsewhere.
h Bab. Sanhedr. fol. 106. 1. k English folio edition, vol. ii. p.
1 Fol. 33.1; 64.1; 82.2; 106.1; 767.
Ch.x.10.] Hwvercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 225
many benches, I pray, were set up? or how many days were
spent in putting to death a thousand men under that provi-
sion, “ Let one bench put te death only one man, or at most
two, in one day?”
Our apostle, therefore, speaks with the Vulgar: and saith
not definitely three-and-twenty thousand perished just to a man,
but three-and-twenty thousand at least ; when, according to that
vulgar canon, it is scarce credible that a thousand men were
put to death by those benches ; when one bench put te death
only one, or two at most, in the space of one day.
The Levites, being numbered presently after the plague of
Baal-peor, were just so many as the apostle here numbers,
Numb. xxvi.62. So a number, equal to the whole tribe of
Levi, perished in one day.
Ver. 10: Ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ" Of the destroyer.}| The Jews
eall evil angels aban saxon angels ὀλοθρευτὰς, destroyers :
and good angels MAW nbn angels λειτουργικοὺς, ministering.
But I inquire, Whether the apostle speaks to this sense in
this place. For! where can we find the people destroyed and
slain by an evil angel? They perished indeed by the pesti-
lence, and by the plague for Baal-peor, concerning which the
apostle spake before: but here he distinguisheth the destroy-
ing of them by the destroyer from that kind of death. There-
fore the apostle seems to me to allude to the notion very
usual among the Jews concerning the angel of death, the
great destroyer, called by them Samael, concerning whom,
among very many things which are related, let us produce
this only :
A™ question is propounded of a cow delivered to a keeper,
hired with a price, carefully and faithfully to keep her. She
strays in a fen, and there dies FINI in the common manner ;
that is, by no violent death: it is demanded, how far the
keeper is guilty? and it is determined that if she had perished
being devoured by wolves, or driven away by thieves and slain,
then the keeper were guilty by reason of negligence. But
this, they say, was the work MINN quon of the angel of
death. For they say, TIT 82227 Maa nya NS opaw
san If the angel of death had suffered her, she had lived in a
! Leusden’s edition, vol. ii, p. 905. m Bava Mezia, fol. 36. r.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. Q
226 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. x. 11, 16.
thief’s house. And the Gloss, \3wWA M23 ya) Nan Jwhn
mai bap The angel of death might kill her even in the house of
him who hired the keeper.
You see how they ascribe it to the angel of death, when any
violent, known, and ordinary cause and evident kind of death
doth not appear. So the apostle in this place mentioneth the
known and evident ways of death; serpents, pestilence, ver. 8,9 ;
and now he speaks of the common kind of death (and not of
some evident plague), whereby the whole multitude of those
that murmured perished, Numb. xiy., within forty years. He
saith they perished ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ, by that great destroyer,
the angel of death.
Ver. 11: Eis ods τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων, &e. Upon whom the ends
of the world, &c.| He saith, τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων, the ends of
the ages ; not τὰ τέλη τοῦ κόσμου, the ends of the world. Aiav,
age, in the Scripture, very ordinarily is the Jewish age. In
which sense circumcision, the Passover, and other Mosaic
rites, are said to be OS εἰς αἰῶνα, for an age. So the dis-
ciples, Matt. xxiv. 3, inquire of Christ περὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ
αἰῶνος, concerning the end of the age; and he answereth con-
cerning the destruction of Jerusalem. In the same should 1
render the words of the apostle, Tit. 1.2; “To the hope of
eternal life, which God hath promised πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων be-
fore the times of the [Jewish] ages:” that is, God promised
eternal life before the Mosaic economy: that life therefore is
not to be expected by the works of the law of Moses.
Thus, therefore, the apostle speaks in this place: ‘‘ These
things which were transacted in the beginning of the Jewish
ages are written for an example to you, upon whom the ends
of those ages are come. And the beginning is like to the
end, and the end to the beginning. Both was forty years,
both consisted of temptation and unbelief, and both ending
in the destruction of unbelievers: ¢haé in the destruction of
those that perished in the wilderness ; ¢izs in the destruction
of those that believed not in the destruction of the city and
nation.”
Ver.16": Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας: The cup of blessing.)
MDA OD The cup of blessing. So was that cup in the
Ὁ English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 768.
Ch.x.17.] -Ezercitations upon 1 Kpist. Corinth. 227
Passover called, over which thanks were given after meat ;
and in which our Saviour instituted the cup of the eucharist ;
of which we have spoken largely at Matt. xxvi.27. When
therefore the apostle marks out the cup of the Lord’s supper
with the same name as the Jews did their cup, he hath re-
course to the first institution of it, and implies that giving of
thanks was continued over it by Christians, although now
under another notion.
Thus his reasoning proceeds: “ As we in the eating of
bread, and drinking of the eucharistical cup, partake of the
body and blood of Christ; so in eating things offered to idols,
men partake of and with an idol. You partake of the
blood of Christ, therefore fly from idolatry. I speak to wise
men; do you judge of the argument. For the very partici-
pation of the eucharist as you up against idolatry, and
things offered to idols.” °
- Ver. 17 : Οἱ yap πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν᾽ For we all
are partakers of that one ὀγοαα.1 The manner of reasoning, “ We
all are one body, because we partake of one bread,” recalls that
to mind which among the Jews was cailed AYWY mixing, or
κοινωνία, communion. The manner and sense of which learn
out of Maimonides°®; ‘“ By the words of the scribes (saith he)
it is forbid neighbours to go [on the sabbath day] Mw 2
THVT in a place appropriated to one, where there is a division
into divers habitations, unless all the neighbours on the sab-
bath eve JA exter into communion. Therefore Solomon
[for they make him the author of this tradition and custom]
appointed, that each place be appropriated to one man, there
where there is a division into divers habitations, and each of
the inhabitants receive there a place proper to himself; and
some place also is left there common to all, so that all have
an equal right in it, as a court belonging to many houses,
which is reckoned a place by right common to all. And
every place which each hath proper to himself is reckoned
THVTT MW ἃ proper place. And it is forbid that a man
carry any thing from a place proper to himself into the place
common to all, [that is, on the sabbath;] but let every one
use the place appropriate to a alone, ἼΩ» ἼἜ TW,
until all enter into communion.
© In 72959 cap. 1.
228 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. x. 19.
SAYA ST mw “ιέ how is that communion made?
TIS box AWM They associate? together in one food,
which they prepare on the eve of the sabbath: as though
they would say, 125935 ams Sosy parry bi, We all
associate together, and we have all one food: nor does any of us
separate a propriety from our neighbour; but as we all have
an equal right in this place which is left common to us, so we
have all an equal right in the place which every one takes to
himself for his own.”
“And Ay the consorting together, which those that dwell
among themselves in the same court make, is called Sy
MAN the communions, κοινωνίαι, of courts. And that con-
sorting together, which they make that dwell among them-
selves in the same walk or entry, or which citizens of the same
city make among themselves, is called SAM W, participating
together.”
“They do not consort together in courts, MD2 nor
sa5. moby, but with a whole loaf. Although the bread of
the batch be a whole seah, if it be not a whole loaf, they do
not enter into consortship with it. But if it be whole, if it be
no more than an assarius only, they enter into consortship
with it.”
“How do they enter into κοινωνίαν, communion, in the
courts? They demand of every house which is in the court
one whole cake or loaf, which they lay up in one vessel, and
in some’ house which is in the court, although it be a barn, or
a stable,” &e. And one of the company blesseth, and so all
eat together, &c.
Compare these things with the words of the apostle, and
they do not only illustrate his argumentation, but confirm it
also. If it were customary among the Israelites to join toge-
ther in one political or economical body by the eating of many
loaves collected from this, and that, and the other man; we
are much more associated together into one body by eating
one and the same bread appointed by one Saviour.
Ver. 194: Τί οὖν φημι; What say I then?) τ MO
VS But what say I? A phrase very usual in the schools,
that is, ‘This I will, or ‘This I conclude” ‘Be an idol
P Leusden’s edit., vol.ii. p.go6. « English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 769.
Ch. x. 21, &e.] Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 229
something or not; or be a thing offered to an idol something
or not; yet certainly those things which the Gentiles offer to
idols, they offer to devils.”
Ver. 21: Τράπεζα Κυρίου The Lord's table.] snow
Mad The table of the Most High, a phrase not unusual in the
Talmudists for the altar.
Ver. 25: Ἔν μακέλλῳ᾽ In the shambles.| The Gemaristst
treat of a question not differing much from this which the
apostle here treats of; namely, how far it is lawful to buy
flesh in the shambles, and that from a heathen, where there
may be a suspicion concerning MDW its being torn: and a
story is brought in of one buying such torn flesh of a heathen:
upon which case saith Rabbi, A} AWW bsawan “For this
Sool, who did that which was not decent, poapn b> ON)
shall we forbid all shambles δ᾽ See the place if you list, and be
at leisure to read it.
Μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες, διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν Asking no question for
conscience sake.| The Jews were vexed with innumerable
scruples in their feasts as to the eating of the thing, as also to
the company with which they ate, and of the manner of
eating. Of fruits and herbs set on the table, they were to
inquire whether they were tithed according to custom, whe-
ther they were consecrated by the Tuma, or some other way,
or whether they were profane; whether they were clean,
or touched with some pollution or uncleanness, &c. And
concerning flesh that was set on the table, whether it was of
that which had been offered to idols, whether it were of that
which was torn, or of that which was strangled, or not killed
according to the canonical rule, &e. All which doubts the
liberty of the gospel abolished as to one’s own conscience,
with this proviso, that no scandal or offence be cast before
another man’s weak and staggering conscience.
ΘΝ
Ver. 4: Προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων᾽
Praying or prophesying, having his head covered.| It was the
custom of the Jews that they prayed not, unless first their
head were veiled, and that for this reason; that by this rite
© In Cholin, fol. 95. 1.
230 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 4.
they might show themselves reverent, and ashamed before
God, and unworthy with an open face to behold him.
“ Lets not the wise men, nor the scholars of the wise men
pray, unless they be covered.” And the Gloss upon Schab-
batht, FYIW MDD HOM Let him veil himself out of reve-
rence towards God. Ts ohyws opyynen pz,
The® priests veil themselves when they go up into the pulpit.
« Nicodemus* went into the school, boar FON and
veiled himself, and prayed. ΠΟ ΓΙ yr pup Ay child
when he knows how to veil himself, MBL AVM is bound to
fringes upon the borders of his garment.” ‘“ Moses” in mount
Sinai saw God Fwy ὙῸ9 as an angel of the church veiled.”
You may fetch a double reason of this veiling out of these
words of the Rabbins: “ When? one goes in to visit a sick
person, let him not sit upon the bed, nor in a chair; NON
ALVIN but let him veil himself, and sit before him; for God
is upon the pillow of the sick person.”. Where? the Gloss is,
IPIW MIND HOyND “ He veils himself by reason of the
terror of God {or reverence towards God], like a man that sits
pry TD PR ON in fear, and looks not on this or that
side of him.’ And¢ “The scholars of the wise men” (in
solemn fasts) “ veil themselves, and sit as mourners and per-
sons excommunicate, nip PHwIT DIN %325 as those that
are reproved by God ;” namely, as being ashamed by reason of
that reproof. So 933, ‘He that was reproved by some great
Rabbin’ “kept himself at home as one that was ashamed ;
nor did he stand before him who made him ashamed with
his head uncovered.”
We may observe Onkelos renders ΓΙ “WA with a high
hand, by ΡΝ wey with an uncovered head: as in Exod. χιν. 8 ;
Tho Israelites went out of Egypt with an uncovered head;
that is, confidently, not fearfully, or as men ashamed; and
Numb. xv. 30; “The soul which committeth any sin WI
sb with an uncovered head ;” that is, boldly and impudently.
3. Maimon. in Tephil. cap. 5. z Maimon. in Jesudei Torah,
t Fol.12. 2. cap. I.
ἃ Piske Tosaph. in Menacoth, a Schabb. fol. 1.1.
numb. 150. b English folio edit., vol. il. p. 770.
x Avoth R. Nathan, cap. 6. —Leusden’s edition, vol. 11, p. 907.
y Erachin, fol. 2. 2. ¢ Taanith, fol. 14. 2.
Ch. xi. 5.1] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 231
So Jonathan also in Judges v.1 ; The wise men returned to
sit in the synagogues sb) wn with an uncovered head ; that
is, not fearing their enemies, nor shamed by them.
Men therefore veiled themselves when they prayed, partly,
for a sign of reverence towards God, partly, to show them-
selves ashamed before God, and unworthy to look upon him.
In which thing that these Corinthians did yet Judaize, although
now conyerted to Christianity, appears sufficiently from the
correction of the apostle.
Of the manner of veiling, see the treatise Moed Katon4 ;
and the Aruche.
-Ver. 5: Πᾶσα δὲ γυνή" But every woman.| I. It was the
custom of the women, and that prescribed them under severe
canons, that they should not go abroad but with their face
veiled.
“Iff a woman do these things, she transgresseth the Jew-
ish law; if she go out into the street, or into an open porch,
tn mby PS and there be not a veil upon her as upon all
women, although her hair be rolled up under a hood.” ‘5 58
ΓΤ ΠῚ NI Ny “ Whats ws the Jewish law? Let not a
woman go with her head uncovered. This is founded in the
Law, for it is said [of the suspected wife], ‘The priest shall
uncover her head,’ Numb. v.18. And the tradition of the
school of Ismael is, That the daughters of Israel are ad-
monished hence not to go forth with their heads not veiled.”
And}, * Modest women colour one eye with paint.” The
Gloss there is; ““ Modest women went veiled, and uncovered
but one eye that they might see, and that eye they coloured.”
“One! made bare a woman’s head in the street : she came to
complain before R. Akiba, and he fined the man four hundred
zuzees.”
If. But however women were veiled in the streets, yet
when they resorted unto holy service they took off their veils,
and exposed their naked faces; and that not out of lightness,
but out of religion. noon Nw Spd, Thek three feasts
are the scabs of the year. The Gloss a “The three feasts
d Fol. 15. 1. and 24. 1. h Schab. fol. 80. r.
e In Fy et 33. i Bava Kama, fol. go. 2.
* Maimon. in ΠῚ Ν᾽ cap. 24. k Kiddush. fol. 81. 1.
ΚΞ Chetubb. fol. 72. 1.
232 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 5.
[ Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles,] are the breakings
out of the year, by the reason of the association of men and
women, and because of transgressions. Because in the days
of those} feasts men and women assembled together to hear
sermons, and cast their eyes upon one another. And some
say that for this cause they were wont to fast after Passover
and Pentecost.”
From whence it may readily be gathered that men and
women should not so promiscuously and confusedly meet and
sit together, nor that they should so look upon one another
as in the courts of the Temple, and at Jerusalem, when such
innumerable multitudes flocked to the feasts: but that women
should sit by themselves, divided from the men, where they
might hear and see what is done in the synagogue, yet they
themselves remain out of sight. Which custom Baronius
proves at large, and not amiss, that those first churches of the
Christians retained.
When the women therefore did thus meet apart, it is no
wonder if they took off the veils from their faces, when they
were now out of the sight of men, and the cause of their veil-
ing being removed, which indeed was that they might not be
seen by men. The apostle, therefore, does not at all chide
this making bare the face absolutely considered, but there lies
something else within. For,
III. This warning of the apostle respects not only public
religious meetings, but belongs to those things which were
done by men and women in their houses and inner chambers;
for there also they used these rites when they prayed and
handled holy things privately, as well as in the public assem-
blies. ‘ Rabban! Gamaliel journeying, and being asked by
one that met him concerning a certain vow, he lighted off his
horse UPN and veiled himself, and sat down and loosed
the vow.” So R. Judah Bar Allai, on the sabbath eve, when
he composed himself in his house to meet and receive the
sabbath, “ they brought him warm water, and he washed his
face and hands, and feet, ps Pw. ΟΜ ΓΙ and veiling
himself with his linen cloth of divers colowrs, he sat down, and
2)
was like the angel τὰ of the Lord of hosts.’ So in the example
1 Hieros. Avodah Zarah, fol. 40.1. ™ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 771.
Ch. xi.5.] Evercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 233
of Nicodemus lately produced; He went” into his school
alone privately, and ‘veiled himself and prayed.” So did
men privately, and women also, on the contrary, baring their
faces privately. A reason is given of the former, namely,
that the men were veiled for reverence towards God, and as
being ashamed before God; but why the women were not
veiled also, the reason is more obscure.
A more general one may easily be rendered, viz. ΓΟ Ὁ
Mean MWD that a woman was loosed, or free from the pre-
cept, that is, from very many rites to which men were subject ;
as from the carrying of fringes and phylacteries, from these or
the other forms and occasions of prayers, and from very many
ceremonies and laws to which men were bound. “R. Meir
saith °, Every man is bound to these three benedictions every
day: Blessed be God that he hath not made me a heathen ;
that he hath not made me a woman; that he hath not made
me V1 stupid,” or unlearned. But Rabh Acha Bar Jacob,
when he heard his son say, “ Blessed be God that he hath
not made me Wa walearned,’ stuck at it; and upon this
reason as the Gloss interprets, JZ 25 85 mum Taw
WIN Because a heathen and a woman are not capable of the
precept: but W\2 a rude or unlearned man is capable. De-
servedly, therefore, God is blessed, that God made him not a
heathen or a woman.”
By this canon, that a woman was loosed from the precept,
they were exempted from covering the face during reli-
gious worship, when that precept respected men, and not
women. But if you require a more particular reason of this
exemption, what reason will you find for it? It is almost an
even lay, whether the canonists exempted women from veiling
because they valued them much, or because they valued them
little. In some things they place women below the dignity,
and without the necessity of observing those or the other
rites: and whether in this thing they were of the same opi-
nion, or that, on the contrary, they attributed more to the
beauty of the faces of women than of men, is a just question.
But whether the thing bend this way or the other, the corree-
tion and warning of the apostle doth excellently suit to this
or to that, as it will appear in what follows.
n Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 908. ° In Menacoth, fol. 43. 2.
234 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 5.
Καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλήν Dishonoureth her head.] “ Dis-
honoureth her head?” What head? That which she carries
upon her shoulders? or that to which she is subjected? as
the man to Christ, the woman to the man. That the apostle
is to be understood especially of the latter appears from the
verse before, and indeed from the whole context. For to
what end are those words produced, ver. 3, “I would have
you know that the λεα of the woman is the man,” &e. un-
less that they be applied, and make to the apostle’s business,
in the verses following ?
Nor yet is the subjection of the woman and the supe-
riority of the man all that by and because of which the apo-
stle concludes that a woman must not pray but veiled, and a
man the contrary. For if it were so argued by him, Let not
a woman pray but with her head covered, because she is sub-
ject to her husband ; it might be argued in like manner, Let
not a man pray but with his head covered, because he is sub-
ject to Christ.
I fear lest that interpretation which supposeth the veiling
of women in this place as a sign of the woman’s subjection to
her husband should more obscure the sense of this place,
obscure enough indeed of itself. So one writesP, “ A woman
ought to have a covering, that she may show herself humble,
and to be subject to her husband.” And another9, “ Now
the reason of the veiling of women is because they are subject
to men,” &e. “A veilt, by which is signified that the wife is
in the power of the husband.” And lastly, ‘* Α 5 veil, whereby
is signified that she is subject to the power of another.” And
very many to the same sense. [But let me ask,
I. Where, I beseech you, is a veil propounded as a sign of
such subjection? It is put indeed as a sign of true modesty,
Gen. xxiv. 65, and of dissembled modesty, Gen. xxxvili. 14:
but where is it used as a sign of subjection ?
II. Hair was given to our grandmother Eve for a covering,
(as the apostle clearly asserts in this place,) from the first
moment of her creation, before she was subjected to a hus-
band, and heard that “ He shall rule over thee;” yea, before
she was married to Adam.
P Primasius, {ad loc. } τ Beza, [ad loc. ]
9 [Dionys.] Carthusian. [ad loc. ] 5 Camerarius, [ad loc. |
Ch. xi. 5.] Ewercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 285
III. The apostle treats not of wives alone, but of women in
general, whether they were wives, virgins, or widows.
IV. The obligation of subjection towards the husband
follows the woman ever and everywhere; ought she ever and
everywhere to carry a veil with her, as a sign of that subjec-
tion? Must she necessarily be veiled while she is about the
affairs of her family? Must she be veiled in the garden, in the
fields, walking alone or with her family? It is clear enough
the apostle speaks of veiling only when they were employed in
religious worship ; and that regard is had to something that
belongs to the woman in respect of Godt, rather than in
respect of her husband. And although we should not deny
that the veiling of the woman was some sign of her subjec-
tion towards her husband, yet we do deny that the veiling,
concerning which the apostle here speaks, hath any regard
to it.
V. The Jews assign shame as the reason of the woman’s
veiling : “ Why" does a man go abroad with his head not
covered, but women with their heads covered? R. Josua
saith, It is as when one transgresseth and is made ashamed ;
she therefore goes with her head veiled.” Behold a veil, a
sign indeed of shame, but not of subjection. And they fetch
the shame of the woman thence, that she first brought sin
into the world.
Therefore the apostle requires* the veiling of the woman
in religious worship, by the same notion and reason as men
veiled themselves, namely, for reverence towards God. But
certainly it may be inquired whether he so much urgeth the
veiling of women as reproves the veiling of men. However,
by this most fit argument he well chastiseth that contrary
custom and foolishness of man: as though he had said, “ Do
ye not consider that the man is δόξα Θεοῦ, the glory of God ?
but the woman is only δόξα ἀνδρὸς, the glory of the man? that
woman was made for man? that man is the head of the
woman? and then how ridiculous is it that man should use a
veil when they pray, out of reverence and shame before God,
and woman not use it, whose glory is less! γυνὴ δόξα ἀνδρὸς,
the woman ts the glory of the man.” So R.Solomony, NANSNS
t English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 772. x Leusden’s edition, vol. il. p. 909.
« Bereshith Rab. sect. 17. Y In Isa. xliv. 13.
236 Hebrew and Talmudical ΤΟΙ. xi. 6, το.
DAN like the glory of the man, that is, saith he, like the
woman, who is the glory of the husband.” See also the
Targum.
[καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλήν Dishonoureth her head. mip
WN the lightness of the head, among the Talmudists, is levity
or irreverence: and if you should render the Greek expression
in the same sense, as though it were WN) bon he vilifies
his head, or ΓΝ Ἢ sho she vilifies her head, one should not
much stray either from grammar or from truth. But the
sense ariseth higher; a man praying covered, as ashamed of
his face before God, disgraceth his head, Christ, who himself
carried the like face of a man: especially he disgraceth the
office of Christ, by whom we have access to God with confi-
dence. And a woman praying not veiled, as if she were not
ashamed of her face, disgraceth man, her head, while she
would seem so beautiful beyond him, when she is only the
glory of the man ; but the man is the glory of God.
Ver. 6: Καὶ κειράσθω" Let her also be shorn.| ‘If she be
not veiled, let her be shorn.” Yea, rather you will say, let her
go with her hair loose, for it was given her for a covering by
nature. Will the apostle suffer this, or any civilized nation ?
By no means. He saith, The hair of women was given them
for a covering, and yet requires another covering; calling to
mind the primitive reason why the covering of hair is given
by nature to a woman, viz. to be a sign of her reverence,
humiliation, and shame before God. The apostle permits
women to gather and bind up their hair into knots by hair-
laces ; a thing done in all nations that were not fierce and
wild, yea, he would scarce suffer the contrary. But if any
woman was so unmindful or forgetful why the veil of her hair
was granted her by nature, and so much assured of her
beauty and her face, as when she prays to take off her veil,
the sign of her reverence towards God; let her take off aiso,
saith he, that natural sign of reverence, the veil of her hair.
Ver. 10: Διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἣ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν, &e. For
this cause ought the woman to have power, §c.| That which
commonly here obtains is that by ἐξουσίαν, power, is under-
stood ὦ veil, a sign of power above her, or of her subjection.
But it is to be inquired whether ἐξουσίαν» ἔχειν, to have power,
does not properly, yea, always denote to have power in one’s
Ch. xi.10.] _Hxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 237
own hand, not ὦ power above one: as Matt. vii.29; John
x1x. 10; 1 Cor. vil. 37; ix. 4; and elsewhere a thousand
times.
Διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους" Because of the angels.| Because of the
angels? Whom! Whether because of good angels? or be-
cause of bad? or beeause of the ministers ? The reader knows
what is said for this sense and for that and for the other,
which we will not repeat.
1. Truly, if I would understand a veil by ἐξουσίαν, power,
by angels I would understand devils, which are called angels
in this very Epistle, chap. vi.3. And if I were of opinion
that the apostle treated here of public assemblies only, I
would render his words to this sense: “ A woman in the
public assembly of the church ought to have her face veiled,
because of the devils: namely, that they ensnare not men by
the appearance of the beauty of women’s faces, and provoke
them to gaze upon their faces, and to behold them with lasci-
vious eyes, while they ought rather to look up to heaven, and
to be intent upon divine things.”
II. Or if by angels are to be understood ministers, our
interpretation doth suit very well, which makes a veil a sign
of shame and reverence before God, not of subjection towards
the husband. For certainly this sounds more logically :
women are to be veiled in religious worship, as being ashamed
before God; therefore let them be veiled before those who
are the ministers of God: than that women are to be veiled
in religious worship, because they are subject to their hus-
bands ; therefore they are to be veiled before ministers.
III. If we take angels in the most proper sense, that is,
for good angels, and attribute its most proper sense to the
expression, ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν, to have power, that is, to have power
mm one’s own hand, then we might interpret the place after
this manner: A woman hath not the power of her own head
in her own hand, διὰ τὸν Θεὸν, in respect of God, but is to be
veiled in reverence towards God: but she hath the power of
her head in her own hand, of not veiling herself διὰ τοὺς dyye-
λους, in respect of the angels ; for she oweth not such a reli-
gious reverence to them.
IV. But 1 suppose the apostle looks another way ; and,
2. English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 7728.
238 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. x1. 10.
I. That he does not here speak in his own sense, but cites
something usual among the Jews; not so much to dictate
some rule for Christian women, as to produce a Jewish custom
in confirmation® of those things which he had said imme-
diately before.
II. He had said, That ‘ the woman is the glory of the man,’
that ‘she was of the man, that ‘she was made for the man,’
&e. “And this may testify that which is said among the
Jews, The woman ought to have in her own hand power of
her head, because of the angels.”
ΠῚ. But now there was among them DWI) ὙΠῸ
angels, or messengers of espousals; who were deputed by this
or that man to espouse a wife for him that deputed him.
Concerning which angels the masters here and there discourse
largely; but especially see Atddushin» : where it begins thus ;
mow 12 WA WIN A man espouseth a wife to himself,
either by himself, or by his angel, or deputy.
IV. But now, although the canons of the masters re-
quired, and the custom of the nation approved, the veiling of
women’s faces in the streets; yet it was permitted women to
bare their faces, to adorn them, to beautify them, in order to
honest marriage: which reason itself and the custom of the
nation confirm, and the Rabbins teach.
V. Hither the reasoning of the apostle in this place seems
to refer, “ Woman was created for man,” ver. g- Which is
proved, O ye Jews, by your own consent; when ye decree
that a woman hath power, and ought to have it in her own
hand, over her own head, because of the angels of espousals.
Let her bare her face if she will, that she may appear beau-
tiful ; let her veil it if she will, that she may appear modest.
She hath free power in her own hands to promote her own
espousal and marriage, that she may be for a man, since she
was created for man.
VI. It is true, indeed, that especially obtained which im-
mediately almost followeth after the words newly alleged,
smb ἽΓ Δ rey Jt is commanded that a man es-
pouse a woman by himself, rather than by his deputy: and that
which presently follows, “ Let no man espouse a woman
a Leusdens edition, vol. ii. p. 910. b Cap. 2.
Ch. xi. 14.] Hvercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 239
before he see her®.” But it was very frequently done, that
after one had seen a woman, he betrothed her to himself by
his angels or deputies, either out of his own modesty, or some
necessity compelling him.
VII. Hence the apostle seems to make mention of those
angels, rather than of the men that deputed them to that
business ; and that the more strongly to confirm and prove
the thing which he treats of. As if he should say, “ The
woman hath not only power of her head to bare her face
before him who is to be her husband, but before them who
are sent and deputed by him to betroth her: and from this
very thing (saith he) it is clear that the woman was created
for the man : seeing she, that she might be for the man, hath
such a power of uncovering her face before those angels who
come to espouse her, when otherwise by the custom of the
nation it were not lawful.” The apostle conceals the word
DO wiIIp espousals ; and saith only, because of the angels, not
because of the angels of espousals : for by the very scope of his
discourse that is easily understood, when in the words imme-
diately going before he saith, “‘ The woman is created for the
man.” So also the Talmudists very frequently use the single
word ond w angels, when once it is known that they are
speaking of espousals.
Ver. 144: ᾿Ανὴρ ἐὰν κομᾷ, &e. That if a man have long
hair, &c.| Whether the apostle reproves men’s long hair by
occasion offered from his discourse of women’s long hair ;
or (which is not improbable) that these Judaizing Corinth-
ians as yet retained Nazariteship, and for that cause let
their hair grow; that which he saith, that “nature itself
teacheth that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair,”
is sufficiently confirmed from hence, that it is womanish.
There were indeed divers nations which wore long hair, as
καρηκομόωντες ᾿Αχαιοὶ, the long-haired Acheans in Homer;
‘Gallia Comata,’ Gaul whose inhabitants wore long hair, in the
historians, &c.; but whether in this they followed the light
of nature, or rather did it out of their barbarous breeding, or
that they might appear more terrible to their enemies, is
upon good reason inquired.
You will say then, Whence comes it to pass that the Na-
© Kiddush. fol. 41. 9. ad English folio edition, vol. il. p. 774:
240 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 14.
zarites let their hair grow, and that by divine command? 1
answer, It was a sign of humiliation and self-denial, as ab-
staining from wine and grapes also was. It made a show of
a certain religious slovenliness, and contempt of a man’s self.
They are therefore very much deceived who think that
Absalom let his hair grow out of pride, when he did so, in-
deed, by reason of a vow (at least a feigned vow) of Nazarite-
ship. The Jerusalem Talmudists say very truly ; oibwan
noel ob ἊΣ Absalom (say they®) was a perpetual Naza-
rite. Very truly, I say, in this, that they assert he was a
Nazarite: but of the perpetuity of his vow we will not here
dispute. See 2 Sam. xv. 7, 8.
There is in Tacitus a wicked votary not unlike him, Civi-
lis by name, of whom thus he speaks; ‘ Civilisf, barbaro
voto, post ccepta adversus Romanos arma, propexum rutila-
tumque crinem, patraté demum czede legionum deposuit.”
Civilis, by a barbarous vow, after arms taken up against the
Romans, laid down his long red hair, the slaughter of the legions
being at last executed.
The Jews, if they were not bound by the vow of a Nazarite,
eut their hair very often ; and however they did it at other
times, certainly always before a feast, and that in honour of
the feast that was approaching. Whence a greater suspicion
may here arise, that these Corinthians, by their long hair,
professed themselves Nazarites.
“ These & cut their hair in the feast! itself: he that comes
from a heathen place, and he that comes out of prison, and
the excommunicate person who is loosed from his exeommu-
nication.” The sense of the tradition is this; ‘“ Those who
were detained by some necessity before the feast, that they
could not cut their hair, might cut it in the feast itself: but
if no such necessity hindered, they cut their hair before the
feast, and commonly on the very eves of the feast. ‘ When?
any man cuts not his hair on the eves of the festival day, but
three days before, it appears that he cut not his hair in
honour of the feast.”
We cannot here omit this story: “A* certain traveller,
e Nazir, fol. 51. 2. i Piske Tosaph. ad Moed Katon,
f Hist. lib. iv. cap. 61. art. 78.
& Moed Katon, cap. 3. hal. 1. k Hieros. Avodah Zarah, fol. 41.1.
h Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 911.
Ch. xi. 15, 21.] Hxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 241
who was a barber and an astrologer, saw by his astrology
that the Jews would shed his blood,” (which was to be under-
stood of his proselytism, namely, when they circumcised
him.) ‘ When a certain Jew therefore came to him to have
his hair cut, he eut his throat. And how many throats did
he cut? R. Lazar Ben Jose saith, Eighty. R. Jose Ben R.
Bon saith, Three hundred.”
Ver. 15: Ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται. Her hair is given
her for a covering.| The daughter of Nicodemus being re-
duced to miserable poverty, going to Rabban Jochanan to
speak to him, FAYWA MBP “ veiled! herself with her hair,
and stood before him.” The poor woman had no other veil,
therefore she used that which was given her by nature: and
she used it (shall I say as a sign? or) as an instrument and
mark of modesty and shamefacedness.
Ver. 21 : Ἕκαστος τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει: Every one
taketh before other his own supper.) 1. I wonder the Agape,
the love feasts, of which St. Jude speaks, ver. 12, should among
interpreters receive their exposition hence. << In those feasts
(saith Beza) which they call Agape, that they used to take
the holy supper of the Lord, appears from 1 Cor. xi: of which
thing discourse is had in Tertullian’s Apologetic, chap. xxxix,
and in other writings of the ancients.” So he also speaks at
Acts 11.42. And upon this place, ‘‘ The™ apostle (saith he)
passeth to another head of this discourse, namely, the admi-
nistration of the Lord’s supper, to which the love feasts were
joined,” ὅθ. And upon the following verse; ‘“ The love
feasts, although they had been used a long while in the church
and commendably too, the apostles themselves being the
authors of them, yet the apostle judgeth them to be taken
away because of their abuse.”
So also Baronius; “The use of a most commendable thing
continued as yet in the church, that as Christ had done at
his last supper, and had admonished his disciples to do in
remembrance of him, Christians meeting in the church should
sup together, and withal should receive the most holy eucha-
rist: which nevertheless when the Corinthians fulfilled not as
they ought, Paul doth deservedly reprove.”
' Bab. Chetubb. fol. 66. 2. m Hnglish folio edition, vol. ii. p. 775.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. LV. R
242 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xi. 21.
He that should deny such charitable feasts to have been
used in the church together with the eucharist, certainly
would contradict all antiquity: but whether those feasts were
these Agape of which the apostle Jude speaks, whether those
feasts had Christ or his apostles for their authors, and whe-
ther these Corinthian feasts were such, if any doubt, he doth
it not without cause, nor doth he without probability believe
the contrary. Of these Corinthian feasts, hear what Sedulius
saith: ‘* Among the Corinthians (saith he) heretofore, as
some assert prevailed an ill custom, to dishonour the churches
everywhere by feasts, which they ate before the Lord’s obla-
tion. Which supper they began a-nights, and when the rich
eame drunk to the eucharist, the poor were vexed with
hunger. But that custom, as they report, came from the
Gentile superstition as yet among them.” Mark that; I
should say, ‘From the Jewish superstition.’ The very same
is in Primasius.
Il. If I may with the good leave of antiquity speak freely
that which I think concerning the Agape, of which the apo-
stle Jude speaks, take it in a few words :
Those Agape, we suppose, were when strangers were hos-
pitably entertained in each church, and that at the cost of
the church. And we are of opinion that this laudable custom
was derived from the synagogues of the Jews. ‘ In” the
synagogues they neither eat nor drink, &c. But there was a
place near the synagogue in which travellers were wont to
sleep and eat.” Hence that in Pesachin®, where it is asked,
Why they consecrate the day (which was usual over a cup of
wine) in the synagogue? And it is answered, DTN DN
ΤᾺΣ 33 ὩΔΊ nw Ib ISN7 jNIW YT That travellers also
may do their duty, who eat, and drink, and feast in the syna-
gogue. Were the Glosser inquires, Whether it were lawful to
eat and drink in the synagogues, when it is forbidden by an
open canonP. And at length among other things he an-
swereth thus ; NNW 2D ὋΞ WP NOIDA ΓΞ ὃ OD ONIN
“ The chambers which joined to the synagogue are called syna-
gogques also, and from thence travellers heard the consecration.”
There was, therefore, a certain hospital either near or joining
n Gloss. in Bava Bathra, f.3.2. 9. Fol.ror.1. Ρ Megil. f. 28.1.
Ch. xi. 21.) 9 Evercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 949
to the synagogue, wherein travellers and pilgrims were re-
ceived, and entertained at the common cost of the synagogue.
Compare Acts xviii. 7.
But now that a custom of so great charity was translated
into the Christian church, there are many things which per-
suade: as also that these entertainments of strangers were
those Agape concerning which St. Jude speaks in terms; and
Peter in the same sense, though not in terms, 2 Pet. ii.
I. Since4 the apostolic churches imitated the laudable
customs of the synagogues in all things almost, which might
more largely be demonstrated if this were a place for it; it is
by no means to be thought that this so pious, so Christian, so
necessary a custom, should be passed over by them. I say it
again, so necessary. For,
II. When the apostles and disciples travelled up and
down, preaching the gospel, poor enough both by the iniquity
of the times, and by the very command of our Saviour; and
when at that time not a few were banished from their own
dwellings for the profession of the gospel; the honour of the
gospel, the necessity of the thing, and Christian piety and
charity required, that they should be sustained by some such
relief. ᾿
III. When Gaius is said to be ‘the host of the whole
church, Rom. xvi. 23, you can scarce take this in another
sense than that he was deputed by the church over the public
hospital [zenodocheum :| where he discharged his office so
laudably, that he carried away a testimony of praise (if he be
the same Gaius which it is probable he was) from St. John in
his third Epistle, ver. 5.
IV. When mention is made of “ widows washing strangers’
feet,’ 1 Tim. v.10; and when Phoebe is said to be διάκονος
τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Keyxpeais, a servant of the church at Cen-
chrea, Rom. xvi.1; to omit other women who are said ‘to
labour much in the Lord ;’ you will scarcely fix a better sense
upon these characters, than that they ministered in that
public hospital of which we are speaking.
V. And this sense agrees excellently well above all others
with the place of Jude alleged, as also with that of Peter, who
treats of the same thing. For Jude speaks of apostate here-
4 Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 912.
R 2
244 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 21.
tics, seducers, the most wicked of all mortal men; who, he
saith, were σπιλάδας" ἐν ἀγάπαις, spots in their agape. And
do you think these were of the same church where they so
fasted? Were these admitted without any scruple to the
Agape, if they were appendages to the Lord’s Supper? For
Jude saith, ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, feeding themselves
without fear. How much more probable is it to think that
these strangers were unknown persons, under the form of
believers, wandering up and down, and received in the com-
mon hospital of the church, and there scattering their errors ;
and that so much the more boldly, as they were themselves
the more unknown! We are far from denying that some
agape, love feasts, were used as appendages of the Lord’s
supper in more ancient ages of the church: but whether in
the times of the apostles we ask, and whether Jude means
such, we very much doubt; and that such are here pointed
out by the apostle we do not at all believe. Those banquet-
ings of the Corinthians before the Eucharist, unless we are
very much mistaken, look far another way; and I fear lest
while some pursue this place concerning the Lord’s supper
with such commentaries of dread and terror that some, being
moved and terrified thereby, do altogether avoid this sacra-
ment as some deadly thing, and not to be meddled with; I
fear, I say, that they do [not] hit’ upon the fault and error of
the Corinthians in this business, and that they do not reduce
that ἀναξίως, unworthily, to their proper crime.
We believe the Jewish part of this church, although con-
verted to the gospel, yet retained somewhat of their old lea-
ven; and as they Judaized in other things, so in this about
the Eucharist; so grievously erring concerning the proper
end of it, that they thought it only an appendage of the Pass-
over, or some new or superadded form of the commemoration
of the going out of Egypt. Into which error they might be
the more apt to fall, they especially who were so inclinable to
Judaism, both because it was instituted in bread and wine
which were in the Passover, and because they had drunk in
this from their very cradles, ‘‘ That the Messiah, when he
should come, would banish or change nothing of the rites of
τ English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 764. errorem Corinthiorum hac in re non
s [Vereor, inquam, ne culpam et acu tangant. Orig. Lat.]
Ch. xi.21.) Ewercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 245
Moses, but would promote and raise all unto a more splendid
form and pomp.” ‘That this was the error of the Corinthians
about the Eucharist, these observations make evident which
the apostle hints, both in this verse and those that follow : of
which in their order as we meet with them. And first, let us
weigh this that is under our hands:
1. It is clearer than the sun, that the apostle sharply re-
proves the Corinthians for these very suppers: I say, for the
very suppers, and not only for an abuse happening in the sup-
pers. For ἴδιον δεῖπνον, his own supper, he calls that which
was to be eaten at home, if any were so hungry before the
Kucharist, that he could not abstain: he dishonoureth the
church with the supper which was brought into it. Weigh
these things and think whether these Agape were those that
are supposed.
Il. The Corinthians placed somewhat of religion in these
suppers when they brought them into the church. But what
was that? Thus doing they retained the shadow and memory
of keeping the Passover, and very willingly they imitated the
example of Christ in the ante-supper, that they might the
more freely serve their Judaism in so doing: yea, they
dreamed that the Eucharist was instituted for the same com-
memoration with the Passover. It was epidemical among the
Jews converted to the gospel, that they embraced Christ-
ianity, but did not forego Judaism: yea, that they brought
over the things of the gospel as much as could be to the doc-
trines and practices of the Jews.
“Os δὲ peOver Another is drunken.| There is none that we
know that applies not ds μὲν πεινᾷ, one is hungry, to the poor,
and ὃς δὲ μεθύει, another is drunken, to the rich; which we
also once believed: but they seem rather to be applied to the
different nations. Drunken, to the Jews, celebrating the
Passover in their ante-suppers before the Eucharist; and
hungry, to the Gentiles, not being hungry so much out of
poverty or necessity, as that they would not embrace such
an ante-supper as savouring of Judaism.
We may interpret the word μεθύει, another is drunk, more
favourably than to extend it to extreme drunkenness. For
t Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 913.
246 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. x1. 23;
all know what ὙΌΣ means in Gen. xliii. ult. they drank
largely with him; and Cant. v.1, “ Drink abundantly, O
beloved.” Where the LXX read, ἐμεθύσθησαν per αὐτοῦ,
they were drunk with him; and μεθύσθητε, ἀδελφοί, be ye drunk,
brethren. But if you will attribute an ignominious sense to
it, it does not much differ from that liberal pouring in of
wine which was allowed, and used by some in their cele-
brating the Passovers. But the apostle seems to inveigh
against the very use of the thing, namely, against the suppers
themselves, rather than against the abuse of them. For if
the excess of those suppers had been that, which is espe-
cially accused, he had bent the force of his reproof more
directly against it; but of that there is not one syllable be-
sides this word.
Wee therefore believe these two contrary expressions, one
is hungry and another is drunken, are thus to be understood :
the Jewish part of the church would by no means come to
the Eucharist without a paschal ante-supper and banquet,
where they were treated deliciously and plentifully’, ate and
drank, καὶ ἐμέθυον, and drank freely, and were filled, and
raised to a pitch of cheerfulness ; when the Gentile party, on
the contrary, abhorring this Judaizing, and avoiding such
ante-suppers, πεινᾷ, as yet were hungry, and approached to
the sacrament fasting, that is, not having supped. And this
we suppose to be the true cause of that enormity which the
apostle corrects, ver. 33, namely, that they would not “ tarry
one for another :” the Gentile party would not tarry till the
Jewish party had despatched their own time, how much
soever it were, in eating their suppers.
Ver. 23: Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου: For 1 have
received of the Lord.| What need had the apostle to recur
to this? Did the Corinthians doubt of the institution of the
Kucharist ἢ or of the authority of the apostle who delivered
unto them that institution? It was neither one nor the other:
for they came to the Eucharist, and that because it was deli-
vered them by the apostle. But he calls them back hither
for this reason, that from the words of Christ who had insti-
tuted his own supper, and from his words wherein he had
" English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 777.
Y [Ubi laute et affluenter excipiebantur. |
Ch. xi. 25.) Hwercitations upon 1 Hpist. Corinth. 947
delivered to them that institution, they might observe, that
the scope and end of that institution was the commemoration
of the death of Christ, not any paschal commemoration.
I. Namely, that Christ had said, ‘ This is my body, This
is my blood ;” to teach that the bread and wine now looked
another way than they had looked when they were used in
the Passover. In that the unleavened bread showed their
hasty deliverance out of Egypt, and the wine their joy for
that deliverance: but in the Hucharist, the bread points out
the body of our Lord broken, and the wine, his blood
poured out.
11, That he said also of the wine, that it is the “new tes-
tament in his blood;’ and what had it therefore to do with
the Passover of the “ old testament ?”
II]. That he said, lastly, upon both, “ Do this in commemo-
ration of me :”
tion of the Passover, or any thing else.
Ver. 25: Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον: This cup.| That our Saviour
speaks here figuratively hath been sufficiently proved for-
merly by very many. But let us observe this moreover.
That cup which Christ used was mixed with water, if so be he
retained the ordinary custom of the nation in this matter ;
which is not in the least to be doubted. Of the custom of
the nation we have spoke at Matt. xxvi. 27; now repeating
this only thence: ‘ The* wise men gave their votes for
R. Eleazar, that none must bless over the cup of blessing
until water be mingled with 10. This we note, that the har-
mony between the sacramental blood, as we may so call it, of
the old testament, and this sacramental blood of the new,
may be demonstrated; and in like manner between this sa-
cramental blood of the new testament and the very blood
of Christ.
I. In the striking of the old covenant, Exod. xxiv, there
was blood mixed with water, Heb. ix. 1g: and in this sanc-
tion of the new, there was wine also mixed with water.
II. Out of Christ’s side, with blood flowed water, John
xix. 34; unusual, beside the course of nature, and that it
might answer the type.
Matthew and Mark exhibit the words of Christ thus, Τοῦτό
x Bab. Beracoth, fol. 50. 2.
in commemoration of me, not in commemora-
248 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xi. 25.
ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου, τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, This is my blood of the
new testament: Paul, and Paul’s companion Luke, thus,
Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον 7) καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν TO ἐμῷ αἵματι: This cup is
the new covenant in my blood, to the same sense with the
former, but more explained. And here again let us compare
the sanction of the old covenant, Exod. xxiv.
I. A figurative expression is used in that history, when it
is said, that Moses sprinkled the blood “upon all the people ;”
that is, upon the twelve pillars erected by him to represent
the twelve tribes, ver. 4. So also in this place, ‘ This is my
blood,” that is, ‘ the representation of my blood.’
II. Ofy the blood then sprinkled it might be said, This is
the blood of Christ, of the old or first testament. The
very blood then and from thence represented the blood of
Christ ; because, under the old testament, there was from
time to time to be shedding of blood. But now, wine is a
representation of the blood of Christ ; because thenceforward
the shedding of such kind of blood was to cease.
III. The? old covenant was not established in the blood
of that paschal lamb in Egypt, but in the blood of bulls and
goats in the wilderness. And the reason was, because when
the Passover was instituted, the laws and articles concerning
which the covenant was entered into had not been promul-
gated: but when they were published and written, then the
covenant was established. In like manner Christ, in the
institution of baptism, established not the new covenant:
oaptism was ‘the beginning of the gospel,’ Mark i.1: but
when he had delivered the doctrine and articles of the gospel,
then he established the ‘ new testament.’
‘H καινὴ διαθήκη" The new testament.) MIND NT VN
“ What* is giving? Behold, all my goods are given to N. from
this time. WMT NWT WT What ts διαθήκη, a covenant ?
snbab ὍΣΣ ny one os ΠΥ ΟῚ mend ob yan,
Let mine be my own and remain so ; but when I die let N. have
them.” So the apostle, Heb ix. 16, ὅπου yap διαθήκη, &e.
Where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of
the testator,” &e.
I. This cup is not only a sign of the blood of Christ, nor
Σ English folio edit., vol.ii. p.778. % Leusden’s edit., vol.ii. p. 914.
@ Hieros. Peah, fol. 17. 2.
Ch. xi. 26.] Hxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 249
only a seal as a sacrament, but the very sanction of the new
testament; that is, of the whole evangelic administration, not
only the sanction of a covenant, but the sanction of the cove-
nant under the evangelic administration. From thenceforth
was the cessation of Judaism. So that blood, Exod. xxiv,
was not only the sanction of the covenant of grace, and the
sanction of the covenant of the peculiarity of the people of
Israel, but the sanction of these things under such an eco-
nomy.
II. While therefore we receive this sacrament, we profess
and protest against all other dispensations and religions be-
sides that of the gospel. Hence in the times immediately
following the ascension of Christ, the communication of the
Kucharist was so frequent; viz. that they who had been now
newly converted from Judaism by the use of this sacrament,
might show that they renounced their Judaism, and professed
the faith and economy of the gospel.
III. Our communion therefore in this sacrament is not so
much spiritual as external, and declarative of our common
and joint profession of the Christian faith. We are far from
denying that the saints have a spiritual communion with God,
and among themselves in the use of the Eucharist; yea, we
assert there is a most close communion between true believers
and God. But what is that spiritual communion of saints
among themselves? Mutual love, one heart, prayers for one
another, ὅσο. But they may exercise the same communion,
and do exercise it, when they meet together to any other part
of divine worship. They may and do act the same thing,
when they are distant from one another. Therefore their
communion in this sacrament, which is distinctly called the
‘communion of the Eucharist,’ is, that they meet together,
and, by this outward sign, openly and with joint minds pro-
fess that they are united in one sacred knot and bond of
Christian religion, renouncing all other religions.
1V. When therefore we approach to the Eucharist in any
church, we do not only communicate with that congregation
with which we associate at that time, but with the whole
catholic church in the profession of the true evangelic
religion.
Ver. 26: Tov θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου καταγγέλλετε᾽ Ye do show
250 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 27.
the Lord’s death.| 10 is known what the 71737 in the Pass-
over supper was, namely, a declaration of the great works of
God in the deliverance of the people out of Egypt. The
same, as it seems, would these Judaizing Corinthians retain
in the Lord’s supper; as if the Eucharist were instituted and
superadded only for that commemoration. The word καταγ-
yéAXere, does very well answer to the word M7371 the decla-
ration: and while the apostle admonisheth them that the
death of Christ is that which is to be declared, it may be
gathered that they erred in this very thing, and looked some
other way.
Ver. 27%: ᾿Αναξίως: Unworthily.| The apostle explains
himself, ver. 29 ; where we also will speak of this verse.
Ver. 28: Δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος, &e. Let a man examine
himself, &c.| He had said before, ver. 19, ἵνα ot δόκιμοι
φανεροὶ γένωνται. that they which are approved may be made
manifest. And in the same sense he saith, δοκιμαζέτω, let a
man approve himself in this place. Not so much, let him try
or examine himself, as, let him approve himself; that is, let
him show himself approved by the Christian faith and doctrine.
So chap. xvi. 3, ods ἐὰν δοκιμάσητε, whomsoever ye shall ap-
prove. We meet with the word in the same sense very often.
Ver. 29: Μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Kupiov' Not discerning
the Lord’s body.| This is to be meant of the proper act of
the understanding: viz. of the true judgment concerning the
nature and signification of the sacrament. If it were said
indeed, μὴ διακρίνων τὸν Κύριον, not discerning the Lord, it
might be rendered in the same sense as “he knew not the
Lord ;” that is, “he loves him not, he fears him not, he wor-
ships him not.” But when it is said, μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα,
not discerning the body, it plainly speaks of the act of the
understanding : “ He does not rightly distinguish of the body
of the Lord.” And this was a grievous error of these Juda-
izing Corinthians, who would see nothing of the body of
Christ in the Eucharist, or of his death ; their eyes being too
intent upon the commemoration of the Passover®. They
retained the old leaven of Judaism in this new Passover of
the Hucharist. And this was their partaking of the sacra-
> English folio edit., vol.u. p.779. © Leusden’s edit., vol. 11. p. 915.
Ch. x1.29.] Evxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 251
ment ἀναξίως, unworthily, as assigning it a scope and end much
too unworthy, much too mean.
There are, alas! among Christians, some who come to this
sacrament ἀναξίως, unworthily; but whether this unworthily
of the Corinthians be fitly applied to them, I much doubt.
How mean soever I am, let me speak this freely, with the
leave of good and pious men, that I fear that this discourse
of the apostle, which especially chastised Judaizers, is too
severely applied to Christians, that Judaize not at all; at least
that it is not by very many interpreters applied to the proper
and intended scope of it.
Of these Corinthians receiving the Eucharist wnworthily, in
the sense of which we spake, the apostle speaks two dreadful
things :— .
I. That they became ἔνοχοι τοῦ σώματος καὶ Tod αἵματος τοῦ
Κυρίου, guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, ver.27. With
this I compare that of the apostle, Heb. x. 29, “ He hath
trampled under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant by which he (the Son of God) was
sanctified, a common thing.” And Heb. vi. 6, “ They crucify
again to themselves the Son of God, καὶ παραδειγματίζουσι, and
put him to an open shame.’ Of whom is the discourse? Not
of all Christians that walked not exactly according to the
gospel rule, (although they indeed esteem and treat Christ
too ignominiously ;) but of those that relapse and apostatize
from the gospel to Judaism, whither these Corinthians too
much inclined, and are admonished seasonably to take care of
the same guilt. For when any professing the gospel so de-
clined to Judaism, that he put the blood of Christ in subordi-
nation to the Passover, and acknowledged nothing more in it
than was acknowledged in the blood of a lamb and other
sacrifices, namely, that they were a mere commemoration and
nothing else, oh, how did he vilify that blood of the eternal
covenant! He is guilty of the blood of the Lord, who assents
to the shedding of his blood, and gives his vote to his death
as inflicted for a ‘mere shadow,’ and nothing else; which
they did.
II. That they ate and drank κρῖμα ἑαυτοῖς, judgment to
themselves. But what that judgment is, is declared ver. 30;
‘* Many are sick,” ὅσο. It is too sharp when some turn κρῖμα
252 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xi. 33.
by damnation, when the apostle saith most evidently, ver. 32,
that κρινόμενοι παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ κατακριθῶμεν, When we
are judged we are chastened. that we should not be condemned.
Thus‘, as in the beginning of the Mosaical dispensation,
God vindicated the honour of the sabbath by the death of
him that gathered sticks; and the honour of the worship in
the tabernacle by the death of Nadab and Abihu; and the
honour of his name by the stoning of the blasphemer: so he
set up like monuments of his vengeance in the beginning of
the gospel dispensation, in the dreadful destruction of Ana-
nias and Sapphira for the wrong and reproach offered to the
Holy Ghost; in the delivery of some into the hands of Satan,
for contempt of and enmity against the gospel ; in this judg-
ment for the abuse of the Eucharist; in the destruction of
some by the plague for Nicolaitism, Rev. ii. 23, ὅσο.
Ver. 33: ᾿Αλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε: Tarry one for another.) Not
that he allowed those ante-suppers of the Judaizers, and com-
mands the Gentile party of the church to wait till the Jewish
part ate those suppers; but having before wholly condemned
those paschal ante-suppers, he would take away all dividing
into parties, and that all might resort to the Eucharist to-
gether with one accord, not separately, and in parts and con-
tentions.
CHAP. Arr
Ver. 3: Λέγει ἀνάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦν: Calleth Jesus accursed.]
Very many Jews that were magicians, exorcists, conjurors,
wandered up and down, who boasted that they were endued
with the Holy Ghost, taught much and did miracles; and yet
called our Lord Jesus anathema. ‘“ But be ye certain (saith
the apostle) that these men neither speak, nor act, nor are
acted by the Spirit of God: ‘For no man, speaking by the
Spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed.” On the other part
also, the whole Jewish nation indeed denied that the Holy
Ghost was given to the Gentiles. “ The Holy Ghost (say
they) dwells not upon any without the land of Israel*.”
Hence is that, Acts x. 45, “The believers that were of the
circumeision were astonished that, even upon the Gentiles,
had been poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
‘** But (saith the apostle) when the Gentiles confess Jesus
4 English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 780. € See R. Sol. in Jon. i.
Ch. xii. 8] Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 253
is the Lord, they do not this but by the Holy Ghost.” And
so he instructs Christians, that they be not deceived by the
crafty and magical spirits of the Jews; and in like manner he
stops the mouth of the Jews, that they should not deny the
Holy Spirit to be bestowed upon the Gentile Christians.
Ver. 8: Λόγος σοφίας, &e. The word of wisdom, &c.| When
the apostle, in this very chapter, numbers up thrice the gifts
of the Spirit, perhaps it will not be in vain to make them
stand parallel in that very order wherein he recites and ranks
them :—
Ver. 8΄.
Δίδοται, is given.
Λόγος σοφίας, the word
of wisdom.
Λόγος γνώσεως, the word
of knowledge.
Ver. 98.
Πίστις, faith.
Χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, gifts
of healing.
Ver. το.
᾿Ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων,
working of miracles.
Προφητεία, prophecy.
Διάκρισις πνευμάτων, dis-
cerning of spirits.
Γένη γλωσσῶν,
kinds of tongues.
‘Epunvela γλωσσῶν, inter-
pretation of tongues.
divers
Ver. 28.
Obs μὲν ἔθετο, God hath set
some.
Πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, first apo-
stles.
Δεύτερον προφήτας, secondly,
prophets.
Τρίτον διδασκάλους. thirdly,
teachers.
Ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, after that
miracles.
Εἶτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, then
gifts of healing.
᾿Αντιλήψεις, helps.
Κυβερνήσεις, governments.
Γένη γλωσσῶν, divers kinds
of tongues.
Vier: 20.
My πάντες, are all.
᾿Απόστολοι, apostles.
Προφῆται, prophets.
Διδάσκαλοι, teachers.
Δυνάμεις, miracles.
Ver. 30.
Χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων,
gifts of healings.
λαλοῦσι,
speak with tongues.
Γλώσσαις
Διερμηνεύουσι, inter-
pret.
We will not be so curious as to conclude that all the words
that are placed in parallel denote the same things, when Paul
himself inverts his own order concerning the ‘ gifts of heal-
ings,’ and of ‘miracles,’ or ‘ powers,’ ver. 9, 28, 30: yet we
cannot be so negligent but to observe a little his order, that
we might fetch something out of it :
Λόγον σοφίας. the word of wisdom, therefore, we attribute to
the apostles, because they unfolded, in a divine clearness, the
whole mystery of the most deep wisdom of God concerning
Christ, and the salvation of man. Concerning which our apo-
stle very frequently.
f Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p.g16. & English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 781.
254 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. xii. 8.
Λόγον γνώσεως, the word of knowledge, we attribute to the
prophets, that is, the knowledge of things to come.
But how do we apply πίστιν, faith, to teachers? That by
faith in this place is not to be understood justifying faith, is
granted, as I think, by all: and that upon good reason ;
when the apostle treats here only of the extraordinary gifts
of the Spirit. Nor can I, indeed, understand it of the faith
of miracles ; not of the faith of doing miracles, because δυνά-
pews, miracles, and χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, gifts of healings, are par-
ticularly and distinctly reckoned up: nor of the faith of be-
lieving miracles, because the discourse here is of the ways and
persons that actively propagated the gospel, not passively
that received it. By faith, therefore, | would understand
fiducia, that is, a holy boldness, confidence, and magnanimity,
wherewith those most holy preachers of the gospel were
armed, so that they could not be terrified by any thing nor
by any person. See Acts iv. 13; but especially ver. 29, 31.
And in this sense faith may very well be attributed to
‘ teachers.’
Δυνάμεις, miracles, and χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, the gifts of heal-
ings, are very easily both distinguished and understood. You
have them again so distinguished, Mark vi. 5, and xvi. 17, 18.
᾿Αντιλήψεις, helps, were they probably who accompanied
the apostles, and baptized those that were converted by
them, and were sent here and there by them to such places,
to which they being employed in other things could not come ;
as Mark, Timothy, Titus, &e. The Talmudists sometimes
call the Levites DIITD> WWOD ἀντιλήψεις ἱερέων, helps of the
priests.
Προφητεία, prophecy, and ἀντιλήψεις, helps, are placed in pa-
rallel according to the order of the apostle; and do agree
indeed excellently well together, if you take prophecy for
preaching: which is done very frequently.
Κυβερνήσεις, governments, also, and διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, dis-
cerning of spirits, stand parallel; and that they denote one
and the same thing I scarcely make a doubt. But κυβερνήσεις
in this place to me sounds not governments, or a power of
ruling, but it speaks a deep and profound reach, {solertiam] :
in which sense it occurs in the Seventy interpreters more than
onee, and answers to the Hebrew word mann prudent
Ch. xiii.1.] Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 255
counsels. Prov. i. 5, rm? nibann 33 Ὃ νοήμων κυβέρνησιν
κτήσεται. The Interlinear version reads, ‘ Intelligens consilia
solertia possidebit ;? The understanding man shall possess wise
counsels. Aben Ezra saith, MAWMD) My pay mibann
‘ Tahbuloth’? denotes counsel and thinking. See also Kimchi
and R.Solomon upon the place. And the same eee
chap. xi. 14, py-bp mibann PRA reads, οἷς μὴ ὑπάρχει
κυβέρνησις πίπτουσι, they who have not κυβέρνησιν fall. What
the word means you may easily gather from the antithesis in
the following words, yyy mig al MyRWM σωτηρία δὲ ὑπάρχει
ἐν πολλῇ βουλῇ" but safety is in much counsel. And again,
chap. xxiv.65: MOTD qb-neyn nibanna, the Seventy
read, μετὰ KuBepvircas γίνεται πόλεμος, war is made with κυβέρ-
vnsis. The Vulgar reads, ‘Cum dispositione initur bellum,’
with disposing, or setting thinas in order.
Διάκρισις πνευμάτων, discerning of spirits, was the judging
between magical and diabolical spirits, and their operations,
and between the operations and speech of the Holy Ghost.
For many false prophets had at that time gone out into the
world, 1 John iv.1; and that κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν
πάσῃ δυνάμει, καὶ σημείοις, Kal τέρασι ψεύδους" according to the
working of Satan in all power, and signs, and lying wonders :
so that it was not easy, 1 had almost said it was impossible, to
distinguish between their wonders and the true miracles of
the Holy Ghost. But the most merciful God taking pity
upon his people, among other gifts of the Holy Ghost shed
abroad for the edification of the church, granted this also to
some, that they might distinguish of prophetical spirits, whe-
ther they were true and divine, or false and diabolical. That
this deep reach is pointed out under this word κυβερνήσεις,
the apostle’s order, the signification of the word, and the
thing itself, do not a little persuade. For when, among all
the gifts of the Spirit, there was scarce any either more useful
or more necessary than this judging of spirits; 1 think he
would hardly omit it in his second enumeration. But where
will you find the mention of it if not in that word ?
CHAP ΧΙΠ.
Ver. 1: Γλώσσαις τῶν ἀγγέλων: With the tongues of angels. |
h English folio edit., vol. i. p.782. + Leusden’s edit., vol.ii. p. 917.
256 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xii. 1.
“Rabban* Jochanan Ben Zaccai omitted not DTW ΓΤ
maw ΝΡ nmw odes nm the speech, or the talk,
of devils, of palms, and of angels ;” but had. learned it. The
Gloss is, “‘ The speech of devils to exorcise them, and of angels
to adjure them.” ‘The apostle speaks according to the con-
ception of the nation.
Κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον" A tinkling cymbal.| Κύμβαλον, a cym-
bal, in the Talmudists is S¥T%. Of which thus they write,
yyw onbyna FON) And! Asaph with loud cymbals,
1 Chron. xxv. ΓΙ ΓΙ onde The little bells {or cymbals |
were two [as appears from the dual number. S17 {V5
TT WT? MP WA Ty Rw AM Tay ΝΞ" But when
they performed one work, and one man performed it, they are
called one. The Aruch saith, “ They were two balls of brass,
and they struck one against another.”
But now κύμβαλον adaddgor, a tinkling cymbal, was when
these two balls were struck one against another without any
either measure or tone of music, but with a rude, inartificial,
and howling sound, Mark v.38; κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας,
weeping and howling.
We may observe in these instances, which are compared
with charity, and are as good as nothing if charity be absent,
that the apostle mentions them which were of the noblest
esteem in the Jewish nation; as also the most precious
things which could be named by them, were compared with
this more precious, and were of no account in comparison
of it.
I. Λαλεῖν γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, to speak with the tongues
of men, with those interpreters is, “to speak the tongues of
the seventy nations,” or at least to speak the tongues of many
nations. So they relate it to the praise of Mordecai, that he
perfectly understood the language of the seventy nations ; and
they require of the Fathers of the Sanhedrim that they be
skilled in many languages, that “the Sanhedrim hear nothing
by an interpreter™.”
II. Λαλεῖν γλώσσαις τῶν ἀγγέλων" To speak with the tongues of
angels. For this singular praise they extol Jochanan Ben
Zaceai in the example alleged.
k Bava Bathra, fol. 134.1. 1 Erachin, fol. 13. 2.
τ Maimon. in Sanhedr. cap. 2.
Ch. xiv.2.] Evxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 257
Ill. Εἰδεῖν μυστήρια πάντα, &e. To know all mysteries, &e.
So they from the same place cited above; ‘“ Hillel the Elder
had eighty disciples: thirty who were worthy to have the
Holy Spirit dwell upon them, as it did upon Moses. Thirty
worthy for whom the sun shall stop his course, as it did for
Joshua. Twenty were between both. The greatest of all
was Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the least was Jochanan Ben Zaccai.
He omitted not,” (but perfectly understood,) “ the Seripture,
the Misna, the Gemara, the idiotisms of the law, and the
scribes, traditions, illustrations, comparisons, equalities, gema-
tries, parables,” &c.
IV. “Opn® μεθιστάνειν: To remove mountains.| By this
expression they denoted, ‘doing things in a manner impos-
sible,’ as we have observed at Matt. xxi. 21. VW py he
rooted up mountains®.
CELA:P2; ΧΙΝ.
Ver. 2: Ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ He that speaketh in a tonque.]
Speaking in a tongue? In what tonaue ? You will find this to
be no idle question when you have well weighed these things :
I. There is none with reason will deny that this whole
church of Corinth understood one and the same Corinthian
or Greek language: as also, that the apostle here speaks of
the ministers of that church, and not of strangers. But now
it seems a thing not to be believed, that any minister of that
church would use Arabic, Egyptian, Armenian, or any other
unknown language publicly in the church; from whence not
the least benefit could accrue to the church, or to the min-
ister himself. For although these ministers had their faults,
and those no light ones neither, yet we would not willingly
accuse them of mere foolishness as speaking an unknown lan-
guage for no reason; nor of ostentation as speaking only for
vainglory. And although we deny not that it was necessary
that those wonderful gifts of the Holy Ghost should be mani-
fested before ali the people, for the honour of him that gave
them ; yet we hardly believe that they were to be shown vainly
and for no benefit.
II. The apostle saith, ver. 4, 6 λαλῶν γλώσσῃ, ἑαυτὸν οἶκο-
δομεῖ, he that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself: which how
2 English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 783. © Bava Bathra, fol. 3. 2.
LIGHTEOOT, VOL. IV. s
258 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiv. 2.
could he do from those tongues, when he could have uttered
those very things in his mother-tongue, and have reaped the
same fruit of edification ?
III. The apostle tolerates an unknown tongue if an inter-
preter were present. But I scarce believe he would tolerate
that one should prate in Scythian, Parthian, or Arabic, &e.,
when he could utter the same things in the Corinthian lan-
guage, and without the trouble of the church and an inter-
preter.
We are of opinion, therefore, nor without reason, that
thatP unknown language which they used, or abused rather,
in the church, was the Hebrew; which now of a long time
past was not the common and mother tongue, but was gone
into disuse ; but now by the gift of the Holy Ghost it was
restored to the ministers of the church, and that necessarily
and for the profit of the church. We inquire not in how
many unknown languages they could speak, but how many
they spake in the church; and we believe that they spake
Hebrew only.
How necessary that language was to ministers there is
none that doubts. And hence it is that the apostle permits
to speak in this (as we suppose) unknown language, if an
interpreter were present, because it wanted not its usefulness.
The usefulness appeared thence as well to the speaker, while
he now skilled [ca//wit] and more deeply understood the ori-
ginal language; as also to the hearers while those things were
rendered truly, which that mystical and sacred language con-
tained in it.
The foundations of churches were now laying, and the
foundations of religion in those churches; and it was not the
least part of the ministerial task at that time, to prove the
doctrine of the gospel, and the person, and the actions, and
the sufferings of Christ out of the Old Testament. Now the
original text was unknown to the common people; the version
of the Seventy interpreters was faulty in infinite places; the
Targum upon the prophets was inconstant and Judaized ; the
Targum upon the law was as yet none at all: so that it was
impossible to discover the mind of God in the holy text with-
out the immediate gift of the Spirit, imparting perfeet and
P Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 918.
Ch. xiv. 2.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 259
full skill both of the language and of the sense; that so the
foundations of faith might be laid from the Scriptures, and
the true sense of the Scriptures might be propagated without
either error or the comments of men.
The apostle saith, ‘“‘ Let him pray that he may interpret,”
ver. 13. And ‘interpretation’ is numbered among the extra-
ordinary gifts of the Spirit. Now let it be supposed that he
spake Latin, Arabic, Persian: either he understood what he
spake, or he did not: if he did not, then how far was he from
edifying himself! And yet the apostle saith, he that4 speaks in
a tongue edifies himself. If he understood what he spake, how
easy was it for him to render it in the Corinthian language !
There are many now learned by study who are able to trans-
late those tongues into the Corinthian or the Greek, without
that extraordinary gift of interpretation immediately poured
out by the Holy Ghost. But let it be supposed, which we do
suppose, that he spake in the Hebrew tongue, that he either
read or quoted the holy text in the original language; and
that he either preached or prayed in the phrases of the pro-
phets; it sufficed not to the interpretation to render the bare
words into bare words, but to understand the sense and mar-
row of the prophet’s language, and plainly and fully to unfold
their mysteries in apt and lively and choice words, according
to the mind of God: which the evangelists and apostles by a
divine skill do in their writings.
Hear the judgment of the Jews concerning a just interpre-
tation of the holy text. They are treating of the manner of
espousing a woman. Among other things these passages
occur; NINA WNW MIO bsy “a7 “The Rabbins deliver.
If he saith, ‘ Be thou my espouser ἐγ. J read - if he read three
verses in the synagogue, behold she is espoused. R. Judah
saith, ‘Not until he read and interpret. τ Om
May he interpret according to his own sense? But the tradition
is this: R. Judah saith, INWED POD ONAN He that in-
terprets a verse according to his own form, behold he is a liar.
If he add any thing to it, behold he is a reproacher and blas-
phemer. What therefore is the Targum? [Or what interpre-
tation is to be used?] Our Targum.”
The Gloss there writes thus: ‘“‘ He that interprets a verse
4 English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 784. τ Bab. Kiddush. fol. 49. τ.
Ss 2
260 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiv. 2.
according to his own form, that is, according to the literal
sound: for example, 2 by γον τ Exod. xxiii. 2; he
that interprets that thus, 72"7 by TON 57 Thou shalt
not testify against judgment, is a liar: for he commands that
judgment be brought forth into light. But let him so inter-
pret it, Thou shalt not restrain thyself from teaching any
that inquire of thee in judgment. So Onkelos renders it.”
“Τῇ he add any thing to it:|—If he say, ‘ Because liberty
is given to add somewhat, I will add wheresoever it lists me;’
he sets God at nought and changeth his words. For where-
soever Onkelos added, he added not of his own sense. For
the Targum was given in mount Sinai, and when they forgot
it, he came and restored it. And Rab. Chananeel explains
those words, ‘ He that interprets a verse according to his own
form, by this example, PN al ‘DONO ANY Exod.
xxiv. 10. He that shall render it thus, smb ΓΙ ii
ΝΣ and they saw the God of Israel, is a har; for no man
hath seen God and shall live: and he will add to it who should
render it, smont saedo mam and they saw the angel of
God. For he attributes the glory of God to an angel. But
let him interpret it thus, NON SY MY Wr and they
saw the glory of the God of Israel. So Onkelos again.”
So great a work do they reckon it’ to‘ interpretjthe sacred
text. And these things which have been said perhaps will
afford some light about the gift of interpretation.
But although the use of the Hebrew tongue among these
ministers was so profitable and necessary, yet there was some
abuse which the apostle chastiseth ; namely, that they used
it not to edification and without an interpreter. And fur-
ther, while I behold the thing more closely, I suspect them to
Judaize in this matter, which we have before observed them
to have done in other things ; and that they retained,the use
of the Hebrew language in the church, although unknown to
the common people, and followed the custom of the syna-
gogue. Where,
I. Thes Scripture is not read but in the Hebrew text; yea,
as we believe, in the synagogues even of the Hellenists: as we
dispute elsewhere of that matter.
5. Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p.g1g.
Ch. xiv.2.] Ewercitations upon 1 Hpist. Corinth. 201
II. Publie prayers in the synagogue were also made in
Hebrew, one or two excepted, which were in Chaldee. ‘“ 'Theyt
were wont to repeat the prayer whose beginning is ΠΡ»
after sermon. For the common people were there present
who understood not the holy language. Therefore this prayer
they composed in the Chaldee tongue, that all might under-
stand :” the rest they understood not.
III. He that taught, or preached out of the chair, spoke
Hebrew, and by an interpreter. ‘“ The" interpreter stood
before the doctor who preached: My γιοῦ sb wm oon,
and the doctor whispered him in the ear in Hebrew, and he ren-
dered it to the people in the mother tongue.” And there in
the Gemara a story is related of Rabh, who was present as
interpreter to R. Shillah: and when R. Shillah said 72) S87)
the cock crows, Rabh rendered it $72 N72, when he should
have rendered it 85°90 Np. Hence there is very fre-
quent mention in the books of the Talmudists of ΓΤ
mas nba Sy ste interpreter of this and that doctor.
While I consider these things used in the synagogues of
the Jews, and remember that a great part of the church of
Corinth consisted of Jews; 1 cannot but suspect that their
ministers also used the same tongue according to the old
custom; namely, that one read the Scripture out of the He-
brew text, another prayed or preached in the Hebrew lan-
guage*, according to the custom used in the synagogues.
Which thing, indeed, the apostle allowed, so there were an
interpreter, as was done in the synagogues: because that lan-
guage, full of mysteries, being rendered by a fit interpreter,
might very much conduce to the edification of the church.
I suspect also that they Judaized in the confused mixture
of their voices; which seems to be done by them because the
apostle admonisheth them to speak by turns, ver. 27, and not
together. Now from whence they might fetch that con-
fusedness, judge from these passages: “'The’ Rabbins de-
liver. In the law one reads, and one interprets ; and let not
one read and two interpret. But in the prophets one reads,
and two interpret. But let not two read and two interpret.
Ὁ Gloss. in Beracoth, fol. 3. 1. x English folio edit., vol.ii. p. 785.
u Gloss. in Joma, fol. 20. 2. y Megil. fol. 21. 2.
262 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xiv. 3.
And in the Hadllel, and in the Book of Esther, ten may read,
and ten interpret.”
The Gloss is thus: “ ‘Let not one read in the law, and
two interpret.’ Much less let two read. And the reason is,
because two voices together are not heard. ‘ But in the pro-
phets let one read, and two interpret,’ because the interpret-
ation was for the sake of women and the common people,
who understood not the holy language. And it was necessary
they should hear the interpretation of the law, that they
might understand the precepts: but of the interpretation of
the prophets they were not so accurate.”
Ver. 3: ‘O δὲ προφητεύων" He that prophesieth.| The word
προφητεύειν, to prophesy, comprehends three things, ‘ singing
psalms,’ ‘ doctrine,’ and ‘ revelation :’ as ver. 26.
I. To prophesy is taken for ‘ singing psalms, or celebrating the
praises of God, 1 Sam. x. 5, ‘Thou shalt meet a company of pro-
phets,...with a psaltery, and a tabret, a pipe, and a harp,
DO NAIM man and they shall prophesy:” where the Chaldee,
PAD PIN and they shall sing or praise. And chap. xix.
24, 25, aw Spr Sr9 And he went Jorward singing. And
he put off his (royal) garment MAW) and sang.
From this signification of the word prophesying, you may
understand in what sense a woman is said to prophesy, chap.
x1. 5; that is, to ‘sing psalms.’ For what is there said by
the apostle, “A man praying or prophesying,” and “a woman
praying or prophesying,” is explained in this chapter, when it
is said, “I will pray,” and “ I will sing.”
Il. To prophesy is to ‘preach, or to ‘have a doctrine,’ as
ver. 26. Hence the Chaldee almost always renders $8")
a prophet, by ΝΘ a scribe, or learned, or one that teacheth.
When it is very ordinarily said of those that were endued
with extraordinary gifts, that “ they spake with tongues and
prophesied.” Acts x. 46, it is said, that “they spake with
tongues, and magnified God.” For they prophesied, is said,
‘they magnified God :’ and that these two ways, either by
praising God, or by preaching and declaring the wonderful
things of God, Acts ii. 11.
III. To prophesy is to foretell and teach something from
divine revelation; which is expressed, ver. 26, by “hath a
Ch. xiv. 5,15.) Evxercitations upon 1 Kpist. Corinth. 263
revelation.” In those times there were some who, being in-
spired with a spirit of revelation, either foretold things to
come, as Agabus did a famine, Acts xi. 28, and Paul’s bonds,
Acts xxi. 10: or revealed the mind of God to the church,
concerning the doing or the not doing this or that thing ; as
Acis xill. 2, by the prophets of Antioch they separate Paul
and Barnabas, &c.
Ver. 5: Θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις" I would that
ye all spake with tonques.| The words do not so much speak
wishing, as directing; as though he had said, “I restrain
you not to prophesying alone, however I speak those things
which are ver. 1-3: but I will exhort that ye speak with
tongues when it is convenient, but rather that ye prophesy.”
He had said tongue, in the singular number, ver. 2, 4, because
he spake of a single? man; now he saith tongues, in the
plural number, in the very same sense, but that he speaks of
many speaking.
Would the apostle therefore have this, or doth he persuade
it? or doth he wish it, if so be it be a wish? “1 would have
you all speak in the church in the Punic, Egyptian, Ethiopic,
Seythian, and other unknown tongues?” Think seriously to
what end this could be. But if you understand it of the
Hebrew, the end is plain.
Ver. 15%: Ti οὖν ἐστι What is et then ?| The apostle ren-
ders in Greek the phrase 71% most common in the schools.
“ Rabba? asked Abai, 2 TDANNN mby ΜΔ 4 man goes
in to the woman when she is espoused ; what then?” Or what is
to be resolved in that case? Again; “ The wife saith, I will
suckle the infant: but the husband saith, Thou shalt not
suckle him. The women hearken. But the husband saith,
That she should suckle it; the wife saith, not. ‘Wid What is
then to be done?” “ One‘ goes in the street and finds a purse:
ww. What is to be done with it? behold, it becomes his. But
an Israelite comes and gives some signs of it: Wd, τί ἐστι;
What is then to be resolved on?” yy WAY «Let our
Master teach us, TD] MOS NWW ὙΤῸ OW ΝΞ yD 4
priest that hath a blemish, ri ἐστι: What is tt that he lift up his
z Leusden’s edit., vol. 1. p. 920. ὁ [bid. fol. 61. τ.
a English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 786. ἃ Bava Mezia, fol. 24. 2.
Ὁ Bab. Chetubb. fol. 39. 1. e Jevamoth, fol. 25. 1.
264 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xiv. 16.
hands” to bless the people! that is, what is to be resolved con-
cerning him? whether he should lift up his hands or no? And
the determination of the question follows everywhere.
To the same sense the apostle in this place, τί οὖν ἐστι;
what therefore is to be done in this case, about the use of an
unknown tongue? He determines, “I will pray with the
Spirit, and I will pray with the understanding.”
So ver. 26: Τί ἐστιν, ἀδελφοί; What is it, brethren 9 that is,
‘What is to be done in this case, when every one hath a
psalm, hath a doctrine,’ &c. He determines, “ Let all things
be done to edification.”
Προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι, &e. L will pray with the Spirit,
&c.] That is, in the demonstration of the gifts of the Spirit ;
and, ‘I will pray with the understanding,’ that is, that I be
understood by others.
Ver. 16: ‘O ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου: He that occu-
preth the room of the unlearned.| wi hidiot, a word very
usual among the Rabbins. ΤΟΥ ΓῚ wd ΟΣ ΤΟΙ 2 4
“Rk. Meirt explained [or determined] in the private tongue. So
also R. Judah. And Hillel the old. And R. Jochanan Ben
Korchah,” ἕο. The Gloss is; “ Private men were wont to
write otherwise than according to the rule of the wise men.”
There DSM and WIN ὦ wise man, and ἰδιώτης, are opposed.
So ΓΔ ΓΙ DMD private priests, are opposed to priests of
a worthier order: and which we have observed before,
MWA ἰδιῶται, private men, are opposed to PINT judges.
In 1 Sam. xviii. 23, mopn WA WS ἃ poor and contemptible
man, in the Targumist is WINN [IO ὍΔ α poor and pri-
vate (hidiot) man.
According to this acceptation of the word ἰδιώτης among
the Jews, the apostle seems in this place to distinguish the
members of the church from the ministers,—private persons
from public. So in those various companies celebrating the
paschal service there was one that blessed, recited, distri-
buted, and was as it were the public minister for that time
and occasion, and all the rest were ἰδιῶται, private persons.
So also in the synagogues, ‘ the angel of the church’ performed
the public ministry, and the rest were as private men. There
f Bab. Mezia, fol. 104. 1.
————_— «ΦὉὉὩΔΑΔ
Ch. xiv. 21.] vercitations wpon 1 Epist. Corinth. 265
were indeed persons among them who were not in truth
private men, but judges and magistrates, and learned men ;
but as to that present action, ἀνεπλήρουν τὸν τόπον (which
you must not understand of sitting in lower seats, but of
their present capacity), they supply the place, or sustain the
condition of private persons, as to the present action, as men
contradistinet from the public minister. ᾿Ιδιώτης indeed oc-
curs for a common or unlearned man ver. 23, which yet hinders
not at all but that in this place it may be taken in the sense
mentioned.
Πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμὴν, &e. How shall he say, Amen, &e.] It was
the part of one to pray, or give thanks,—of all to answer,
Amen. ‘“ They& answer Amen after an Israelite blessing,
not after a Cuthite,” Χο. But “ they> answered not jos
MIM the orphan Amen DWM jos 59 nor the snatched
Amen,” &e.
The orphan Amen was when Amen was said, and he that
spake weighed not, or knew not why or to what he so an-
swered. To the same sense is TWO NV, an' orphan
psalm ; that is, a psalm to which neither the name of the
author is inscribed, nor the occasion of the composure.
NON among the Talmudists is sometimes ὦ fool, or un-
learned*. Let it be so, if you please, in this phrase. Such
is the Amen concerning which the apostle in this place;
when any one answers Amen foolishly to a thing not under-
stood.
Ver. 21: Ἔν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται: In the law it 18 writien.]|
In the law, that is, in the Scripture: in opposition to
OM I, the words of the scribes. For that distinction was
very usual in the schools. PWD MH this we learn out of the
law, ΓΤ Δ MM, and this from the words of the scribes.
APT PIAS PR AYN ΠΣ The™ words of the law, [that
is, of the Scripture] have no need of confirmation. ὍΣ. MII
PIM PINL but the words of the scribes have need of confirma-
tion.
The" Former Prophets, and the Latter, and the Hagio-
& Beracoth, cap. 8. hal. 8. 1 Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 921.
h Hieros. Berae. fol. 12. 3. m Tosapht. in Jevamoth, cap. 1.
i Bab. Avod. Zarah, fol. 24. 2. n Bab. Sanhedr. fol. 91. 2.
kK English folio edit., vol. ii. p.787.
266 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xiv. 26, 27.
grapha are each styled by the name of the Jaw; so that there
is no need of further illustration. ‘“ Whence is the resurrec-
tion of the dead proved out of the law? From those words,
M2) TR, Josh. vill, 30, WOR) ον M21 Jt is not said,
Then he * built? [in the preterperfect tense], but 7229 he shall
build [in the future tense], JQ DWNT nennd S273
myn Hence the resurrection of the dead is proved out of
the law.”
‘Whence is the resurrection of the dead proved out of
the law? From thence that it is said, ‘ Blessed are they that
dwell in thine house; poop TY they shall always praise
thee, Psalm Ixxxiv. 4. “VWON) ἣν noon It is not said,
They do praise thee, but spoom They shall praise thee.
Hence the resurrection of the dead is proved out of the law.”
“Whence is the resurrection of the dead proved out of
the law? From thence that it is said, ‘Thy watchmen shall
lift up their voice. 323.7 YIM bp They shall sing with
their vorce together, Isa. 111. ὃ. WON) xb Ἴ23. It is not said,
They sing, but 33399 They shall sing. Hence the resurrection
of the dead is proved out of the law.”
Behold the Former Prophets called by the name of the
Law: among which is the book of Joshua; and the Latter
Prophets, among which is the book of Isaiah; and the Ha-
giographa, among which is the book of Psalms.
Ver. 26: Ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ψαλμὸν ἔχει: Every one of you hath
a psalm.| That is, “* When ye come together into one place,
one is for having the time and worship spent chiefly in singing
psalms, another in preaching, &c. One prefers singing of
psalms, another a tongue, another preaching,” &c.
Ver. 27: Κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς" By two, or at the most
by three.| The apostle permits the use of an unknown tongue,
as you see; and I ask again, of what tongue? Let that be
observed which he saith, ver. 22; ‘‘ Tongues are for a sign,
not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.”
And unless you prove there were in the church such as be-
lieved not, which it implies, I would scarcely believe he per-
mitted the use of unknown tongues under any such notion ;
especially when he had said immediately before, “ Let all
Ch. xiv. 29, 35.] LEvercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 267
things be done to edification.” But suppose that which
we suppose of the Hebrew language, and the thing will suit
well.
This our most holy apostle saith of himself, chap. ix. 20,
“ Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the
Jews ;” which seems here to be done by him: but neither
here nor any where else unless for edification, and that he
might gain them. They would not be weaned from the old
custom of the synagogue as to the use of the Hebrew tongue
in their worship, and for the present he indulges them their
fancy ; and this not vainly, since by the use of that tongue
the hearers might be edified, a faithful interpreter standing
by; which in other languages could not be done any thing
more than if all were uttered in the Corinthian language.
“Τῇ any speak in a tongue, let it be by two,” &c. Let
one read the Scripture in the Hebrew language, let another
pray, let a third preach. For according to these kinds of
divine worship you will best divide the persons, that all may
not do the same thing.
Ver. 29°: Προφῆται δὲ δύο 7) τρεῖς AaAdcitw@oav’ Let the pro-
phets speak two or three.| Let one sing, who ‘ hath a psalm ;’
let another teach, who ‘hath a doctrine ;’ and if a third hath
‘exhortation or comfort,’ as ver. 3, let him also utter it.
Ver. 30: “Edy δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῆ καθημένῳ: If any
thing be revealed to another that sitteth by.| That is very fre-
quently said of the Jewish doctors, WY MT He sat: which
means not so much this barely, he was sitting, as he taught out
of the seat of the teacher, or he sat teaching, or ready to teach.
So that indeed he sat and he taught are all one. Examples
among the Talmudists are infinite. In the same sense the
apostle : “ If something be revealed to some minister who hath
a seat among those that teach, &c., not revealed in that very
instant ; but if he saith, that he hath received some revelation
from God, then ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω, let the first be silent ; let him
be silent that ‘ hath a psalm,’ and give way to him.”
Ver. 35: Αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστι γυναιξὶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαλεῖν" For
it is a shame for women to speak in the church.| Compare
thatP: “ The Rabbins deliver, ΓΙ ὩΣ yd poy Sein
© English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 788. P Megill. fol. 23. 1.
268 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. xv. 5, &e.
Every one is reckoned within the number of seven” [of those that
read the law in the synagogues on the sabbath day], }7°DS)
Twn toa PUP “even a child, even a woman. But the
wise men say, ‘ Let not a woman read in the law, M35 735%
aE for the honour of the synagogue.” Note that: it was a
disgrace to the church if a woman should read in it; which
was allowed even to a child, even to a servant: much more
if she usurped any part of the ministerial office. It was also
usual for one or the other sitting by to ask the teacher of
this or that point: but this also the apostle forbids women ;
and that for this reason, ‘‘ Because it was not allowed women
to speak, but let them be subject to their husbands,” ver. 34.
It was allowed them to answer Amen with others, and to sing
with4 the church; but to speak any thing by themselves, it
was forbidden them.
CELA Ps XV.
Ver. 5: Kal ὅτι ὦφθη Κηφᾷ' And that he was scen of Ce-
phas.| Namely, going to Emmaus. See what we have said
at Mark xvi.
Ver. 6: Ἔπειτα ὠφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ'
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.] “ In
a mountain of Galilee,” Matth. xxviii. 16; where it is added
by the evangelist, of δὲ ἐδίστασαν, but some doubted, which is
to be warily understood; not that some of the eleven now
still doubted of his resurrection, for Thomas himself had
believed before; but that some of that multitude, assembled
there with the eleven, doubted. Therefore it is not only con-
gruous but necessary to render that verse thus; “ And they
(the eleven disciples) seeing him, worshipped him; but others
doubted.”” Not some of the eleven, but others of the com-
pany.
Ver. 7°: Ἔπειτα ὥφθη “laxéBw After that, he was seen of
James.| What James? the son of Zebedee, or of Alpheus ?
It is more probable to understand it of James the son of
Alpheus ; and that he was alive when Paul wrote this; and
that the apostle seems on purpose to treat of the appearance
of Christ to Peter; and James, the minister of the cireum-
cision; and to himself, the minister of the uncireumcision.
α Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 922.
Yr English folio edition, vol. il. p. 789.
Ch. xv. 8, 20.] Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 269
See the story of one James, a disciple, as he is styled, of
Jesus 8,
Ver. 8: Ωσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, &e. As of one born out of
due time, &c.| Sps an untimely birth, Job iii. 16, to the LX X
interpreters is ἔκτρωμα: and, which is to be marked, they
render ΤΣ 282 a hidden untimely birth, ἔκτρωμα ἐκπορεύομενον
ἐκ μήτρας μητρὸς, an untimely birth, proceeding out of his mother’s
womb ; when the word [572% hidden seems rather to denote
the contrary; namely, that it never went out of its mother’s
womb, but was always hidden there. So the Chaldee, Nap
NDYOA ww an untimely birth, hidden in the womb.
Hence the word 751d, very usual among the Talmudists
for a woman bringing forth an abortion. TWOMd (Ree nésor
Py TT At’ woman that comes before her time, and brinas
forth, in the figure of a beast, or a bird. VW bap noport
OP YW IN sphow Coming before her time, and bringing
forth a sandal, secundine, or a figured lump, &e. Numb. xii.12 ;
‘Qoet ἔκτρωμα ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ μήτρας μητρὸς, καὶ κατεσθίει τὸ
ἥμισυ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτῆς" As an untimely birth coming out of
the mother’s womb, and devoureth the half of her flesh.
As though the apostle should say, “ How far am I from an
apostle! As much as some misshapen and deformed lump
brought forth by an abortive birth differs from the shape
of aman.” You may render the words in English more apt
and clear, unless I am mistaken in my conjecture, after this
manner: as to a thing born out of due form, than as they are
rendered, as to one born out of due time. Παιδίον μὴ ἐξεικο-
νισμένον, ὦ child not shaped; so the LX X in Exod. xxi. 22.
Ver. 20: ᾿Απαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων" The firstfruits of them
that slept.| Although the resurrection of Christ, compared
with some jirst/ruits, hath very good harmony with them,
yet especially it agrees with the offering of the sheaf, com-
monly called WW", not only as to the thing itself, but as to
the circumstance of time. For, first, there was the Pass-
over, and the day following was a sabbatic day ; and on the
day following that were the jfirstfruits offered. So “ Christ
our passover was sacrificed.” The day following his crucifixion
was the sabbath, and the day following that, He, the firstfruits
of them that slept, rose again.
* Avodah Zarah, fol. 16. 2. and 27. 2. t Cherithuth, cap. 1. hal. 3.
a [Lev. xxiii. 10-13. |
270 Hebrew and Talmudical [ Ch. xv. 29.
Ver. 29: Οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν" They which are
baptized for the dead.| 1. In this sense you may best under-
stand these words: ‘ Otherwise what shall they do who
undergo martyrdom, and are baptized in that sense, as bap-
tism denotes death by martyrdom, if the dead are not at all
raised?” For,
1. That baptism is taken for martyrdom appears enough,
Matth. xx. 22, 23.
II. See how very well the connection of the following verse
agrees to this sense: ‘ What shall they do who have under-
gone, and do undergo martyrdom, if there be not a resurree-
tion? Τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν ; ‘and why do we also every
day and every moment go in danger of martyrdom?”
III. He argues from them that die in Christ, that is, in the
faith of Christ, ver. 18. And do you believe he would omit an
argument from those that die for the faith of Christ ?
IV. He saith, τί ποιήσουσιν ; what shall they do? Not ποι-
obow; what do they? Not what they mean, or denote, or
signify by this that they are baptized, ὅσο. but what shall
they do? or what shall become of them? They have
delivered their bodies to martyrdom, and what shall be-
come of them if their bodies rise not again? So Jer. v. ult.
anos WPAN, What will ye do in the end thereof ?
that is, what will become of you ?
There" lies no sense in the words as to this sense which
we propound, but in the phrase ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, for the dead :
which let us illustrate by a like phrase. The Jews baptized
a proselyte Δ ows, under the notion or in the name of a
proselyte ; and a servant to be set free ΓΤ ows under
the notion or in the name of a libertine. But now when it was
said, ‘ N. is baptized ab for a proselyte; N. is baptized
Vw for a libertinex; are not these words uttered well
in Greek, Ὁ δεῖνα βαπτίζεται ὑπὲρ προσηλύτου, ὑπὲρ ἐλευθέρου,
such a one is baptized for a proselyte, for a free man.
II. If the rendering the word ὑπὲρ in this sense seem
somewhat uncouth, let it be supposed that the apostle speaks
of washing and purification appointed to the Jews after the
touching a dead body, and the rendering will be nearer.
u English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 790.
x Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 923.
Ch. xv. 31.] Hvercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 271
Upon that law thus R. Bechai; “ He that toucheth a dead
body is to be purified with the water of purification with
ashes ; namely, those of the red cow, which purifies him that
is defiled by the dead. Whence arose among us the custom
of washing hands when we come from a dead person; 7
rm sn, which intimates the water of the red cow, ὯΔ SVN
Donnan nvnn> wm }>, and intimates also the resurrection
of the dead.” But after what manner doth it do that? Hear
Zohar Y upon that matter: “The spirit of uncleanness dwells
upon men by reason of the dead. NOVON Wrd But what
remedy have they? That which is written, JAW OY bas)
And they shall return to their dust ; that is, to the dust of the
burnt red cow, whereby they are purified. And the spirit of
uncleanness departs, and another holy spirit is shed abroad.
God gave Israel counsel, that they should use all manner of
remedies whereby they might obtain the life of the world to
come; namely, that they be found pure in this world and
holy in the world to come. Concerning whom it is written,
‘I will sprinkle upon you pure water, and ye shall be puri-
fied,’ ” Ezek. xxxvi.
We cannot omit that?: “ Anciently it was a custom to
baptize vessels over women dying in their monthly courses,
mrp 2a by dom mss jovawn, at which thing the men-
struous women that were alive blushed. Therefore they ap-
pointed to baptize over all women, for the honour of men-
struous women that were alive. Anciently they baptized
over profluvious men departed; for which the profluvious
men that were living were ashamed. ‘They appointed there-
fore that they should baptize over all men, in honour of the
profluvious men that were alive.”
Ver. 31: Νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν, ἣν ἔχω, &e. L protest
by your rejoicing which I have, &c.| That which the apostle
asserts is this, that he died daily; that is, was trod upon,
suffered contempt, underwent danger, expected death. And
that this is so I appeal, saith he, to your boasting, O ye Co-
rinthians. But in what sense is that boasting to be under-
stood? Not the apostle’s boasting of them; for then it
would more properly have been said, ἡμετέραν καύχησιν, our
Υ Fol. 86. 4. 2 Babyl. Moed Katon, fol. 27. 2.
272 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xv. 32.
boasting, than ὑμετέραν, your. Nor was there indeed any
reason, as things then stood, why the apostle should doast
of them. Nor is their doasting in the apostle to be under-
stood: for alas! how did they too much undervalue him !
The boasting, therefore, that he hints was their boasting
against him; and this is it that he calls upon and appeals
to. ‘* Every day (saith he) I die, I am despised, trod upon,
am in hazard; and for witness of this I call and appeal to
your very boasting against me: which indeed I reckon for
my boasting in Jesus Christ. It became not you to glory
against me; but since ye do it, I glory in this very con-
tempt and reproach.”
Ver. 32: Ei κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα" If after the man-
ner of men I have fought with beasts.) This is that great danger
concerning which he speaks, 2 Cor. i. 8,9; which is not at
all to be understood of the tumult raised among the Ephe-
sians by Demetrius, for this Epistle was written before that
tumult ; but according to the letter, that the apostle was
really cast to wild beasts in the theatre. Nor does it obstruct
this opinion that Luke, relating the acts of Paul, omitted
this so notable a history, since he hath omitted very many
other; nor that those that fought with beasts were different
from those that were cast to beasts, since the latter must
fight with them or perish without any hope. But, on the
contrary, there are these two things make for it :
I. That in Demetrius’s insurrection the chief of Asia (Asi-
archx) afforded themselves Paul’s friends, Acts xix. 31: that
is, those priests among the heathen whose office it was to
publish those plays of the theatre for the honour of the gods.
᾿ρώτων τὸν ᾿Ασιάρχην Φίλιππον, ἵνα ἐπαφῇ τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ λεόντα.
Ὁ δὲ ἔφη μὴ εἶναι ἔξον αὐτῷ, ἐπειδὴ πεπληρώκει τὰ κυνηγέσια:
They* asked Philip the Asiarch {the interpreter renders it
munerarius”, the setter-forth of the games| to let loose a lion
upon Polycarp ; but he answered, he might not, because now the
Sighting with wild beasts [those games] was over. The same
were the ‘ Phceniciarche’ and the ‘ Syriarchze°.’
But now whence came it to pass that these Asiarchs were
ἃ Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib.iv.c.15. Ὁ English folio edit., vol. ii. p-791.
© Novell. 89. at the end, ἄς.
Ch. xv. 36, 45.] Hvercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 273
friends to Paul? Was it as being persons that embraced the
gospel? Why therefore were they still Asiarchs? But it
seems rather that Paul, being set to combat with beasts, was
preserved by some wonderful and stupendous manner; 80
that the Asiarchs themselves, seeing the miracle, were carried
away with admiration of the thing, and the good will towards
him.
II. What else doth κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα mean, than
1 have fought with beasts in the manner that men fight with
beasts ? or, 7 have fought with beasts in this very human body.
And that which he adds, ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, in Ephesus, renders the
sense more clear, and restrains it much more to the letter.
For if it were so to be understood, ‘I fought at Ephesus with
Demetrius and his fellows, as if it had been with beasts,’ it
had been much more suitable to have brought an example of
his stoning in Lystra, Acts xiv.19; of his whipping at Phi-
lippi4, Acts xvi. 22, 23, &c. For in Demetrius’s uproar at
Ephesus you find him to have borne or undergone, no not one
blow, I had almost said nor any danger. Gaius and Ari-
starchus indeed, being drawn into the theatre, endured some
violence, being perhaps presently to be cast to the beasts:
but read and read again the whole story, Acts xix, and there
is not a syllable of any wrong that Paul at that time endured
in his person.
Ver. 36: "Αφρον" Fool.] ow, would the Talmudists say,
sot, madman. ‘+ Rabbane Jochanan Ben Zaccai answered the
Baithuseans [denying also the resurrection of the dead) and
said, aah PID Dww ”"Adpoves, Fools, whence did this happen
to you, &e.
Ver. 45: Οὕτω καὶ γέγραπται: And so it is written, &e.] Of
the former no doubt is made; for it is written Gen. x1. 7.
But where is the latter ? Throughout the whole sacred book :
thence the Jews speak so many things and so great of the
‘ Spirit of Messias, and of ‘ Messias quickening.’
Ὃ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν: The last Adam was
made a quickening spirit.| Job xix. 25, “OND “YT! TOR;
oj Ἔν ΟΣ AN) Ἢ I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand in the latter day upon the earth. Job
ἃ Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 924. e Gloss. in Taanith, fol. 17. 1.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. LV. At
Q74 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xv. 47.
seems to me in this place, in the words 03)" Ἔν -ὃν JM,
to speak in the same sense with ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδὰμ, the last
Adam. Of the former Adam it was said, spy-by MAS WY
ΣΤ Dust thou art, and to dust thow shalt return. I know
(saith Job) that my Redeemer liveth, and he shall arise from
the dust another or a latter [posterior]; and I shall see the
Lord made of the same flesh that I am of, &e.: intimating
the incarnation of the Messiah.
Εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν: A quickening spirit.| ‘“ The Spirit
of the Lord moved upon the face of the waters,” Gen. 1. 2.
Mw qbn by WN Mm This is the Spirit of King Messias.
So the Jews speak very frequently. And also TINY Mw
spy ow Phe) Messias shall quicken those that dwell in the
dust.
It cannot be passed over without observation, by what au-
thority Paul applies those words of Psalm cii, “ Thou, Lord,
in the beginning hast founded the earth,” &c., to the Messias,
Heb. i. 10, to prove his Deity and dignity. “ But thou art
deceived, O Paul, (would a Hebrew say ;) these words are to
be applied to God the Father, not to the Messias.” The
apostle hath what to reply from the very confession of the
Jewish nation; “ You acknowledge that Spirit which was
present at and president over the creation was ‘the Spirit of
the Messias.’”
It ought not also be passed by without observation, that
Adam, receiving from him the promise of Christ, and believing
it, named -his wife Chava, [77] that is, Life. So the
Seventy, Kal ἐκάλεσεν ᾿Αδὰμ TO ὄνομα Ths γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ ζωή"
And Adam called his wife's name ‘ Life,’ Gen. iii. 20. What!
is she called Life that brought in death? But Adam per-
ceived τὸν ἔσχατον ᾿Αδὰμ, the last Adam, exhibited to him in
the promise to be πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, a quickening spirit; and
had brought in a better life of the soul, and at length should
bring in a better of the body. Hence is that, John 1. 4, Ἔν
αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν, In him was life.
Ver. 47£: ‘O δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ Κύριος: The second man is
the Lord.| Gen. iv.1; ‘ Eve conceived and brought forth
Cain, and said, TIT-NN WN NIP L have possessed,” or
f English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 792.
é
Ch. xvi.1.] Ewercitations wpon 1 Epist. Corinth. 275
obtained, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν Κύριον, a man, the Lord; that is,
‘that the Lord himself should become man.” For let me so
turn it, depending upon these reasons:
I. That this interpretation is without any manner of wrest-
ing the particle M$; yea, it is according to its most proper
signification and use.
II. That, without doubt, Eve had respect to the promise
of Christ when she named her son; as Adam had respect to
the promise in the denomination of Eve.
Ver. 55: Ποῦ σου θάνατε, &c. O death, where is thy, $e.]
Hos. xii. 14, NV FAT TR, the Seventy read it, Ποῦ ἡ
δίκη σου, θάνατε; Where is thy y revenge, O death? And thus
speaks Aben Ezra; TS WD TIT OMAN wr“ There are
some which invert the word, WS I will be, as though it were
TPS where: SIT NDT 127 ‘TN WONT DIM And
very truly ; as it is said, 3250 WN ver. 10, Where is thy
king 2?” Where the Chaldee, q2>n 18, not I will be thy king,
but Where is thy king? So that the Greek interpreters, and
the apostle after them, translated ‘4 ποῦ, where, properly
and truly. sf
The word ΠΥ in the prophet is rendered by the Tar-
gumist and the Rabbins to signify ὦ word: but some, as
Kimchi acknowledges, understand it to signify the plague;
and that upon good ground, because the word βίων destruc-
tion is joined with it; as 1t0)) destruction, and ἜΣ the plague,
are joined together, Psalm xci. [6.7 Where see the Targum
and R. Solomon, and compare the Greek interpreters with
them.
CHAPS VAI:
Ver. 1: Περὶ δὲ τῆς λογίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους" Now concern-
ing the collection for the saints.) Unless 1 am much deceived
ὩΣΥΙ Mag in the Jerusalem writers denotes, in the like
sense, τὴν λογίαν εἰς τοὺς σοφοὺς, the collection for the wise men.
They have this story; ‘“ R. Ehezers, R. Josua, and R. Akiba
went up to Cholath of Antioch, ΩΓ Maw poy bogs
employed in the collection for the wise men. One Abba Judah
was there, who performed the law with a good eye. Being
now reduced to poverty, when he saw the Rabbins he was
& Horaioth, fol. 48. 1. h Teusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 925.
T 2
276 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xvi. 2.
dejected. He went home with a sad countenance. His wife
said to him, ‘ Why doth thy countenance languish ?’? He an-
swered, ‘ The Rabbins are come, and I know not what to do.’
She said to him, ‘ You have one field left ; go and sell half of
it, and give to them.’ Which he did. And when they were
departed he went to plough in the half of his field, and found.
a great treasure,” &c. I produce this the more willingly,
that it may be observed that co//ections were made among
the Jews in foreign nations for the poor Rabbins dwelling in
Judea. in the same manner as they were made among Christ-
ians in foreign nations for the poor Jews converted to Christ-
ianity in Judea.
Ver. τὶ : Kara μίαν σαββάτων" On the first day of the week.]
Nawal wa ln the first of the sabbath would the Talmudists
say.
I. That day was everywhere celebrated for the Christian
sabbath: and, which is not to be passed over without obsery-
ing, as far as appears from Scripture, there is nowhere any
dispute of that matter. There was controversy concerning
circumcision, and other points of the Jewish religion, whether
they were to be retained or not retained ; but nowhere, as we
read, concerning the changing of the sabbath. There were,
indeed, some Jews converted to the gospel; who as in some
other things they retained a smatch of their old Judaism, so
they did in the observation of days, Rom. xiv. 5, Gal. iv. 10;
but yet not rejecting or neglecting the Lord’s day. They
celebrated it, and made no manner of scruple, as appears, con-
cerning it; but they would have their old festival days re-
tained too: and they disputed not at all whether the Lord’s
day were to be celebrated, but whether the Jewish sabbath
were not to be celebrated also. So they admitted baptism,
but it went against them not to admit circumcision also.
And so also in some other articles of Judaism, not rejecting
the gospel, but superinducing something of Judaism. ‘“ As I
have ordained in the churches of Galatia, (saith the apostle,)
so do ye also: on every jirst day of the week,” &c. And yet
the same apostle saith of the same Galatians, ‘‘ Ye observe
days, and months ;” not that they refused the Christian sab-
bath, but that they retained the Jewish sabbaths.
i English folio edition, vol. ii. p. 781.
Ch. xvi.2.] Hwercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. “77
II. The ‘ Lord’s day’ sufficiently commended itself by its
own authority; nor could the institution of it at all be
doubted by the converted Gentiles, as never knowing, or at
least owning, any other sabbath: nor by the converted Jews
if they acknowledged Jesus for the true Messias; because
they had learned in their schools that Messias should make
a new law, as Moses had made the old. And that also
which they had drunk in from their cradles, that Messias
should not abolish the institutions of Moses, but raise them
higher, and make them more splendid, although it might be
more a scruple among them of the abolishing the Jewish sab-
bath, yet it could make none of superinducing the Christian
sabbath.
IIT. In that controversy of the change of the sabbath from
the Jewish to the Christian, which some prosecute too much
without any cause, they reckon the Scriptures’ silence con-
cerning the institution of the ‘ Lord’s day’ for a denial of the
thing: as if it were by no means to be believed because it is
not expressed in plain words.
Among many things said in that case, let us put in these
few :
I. The holy text, indeed, is silent of this matter while the
scene of Christian affairs is lying in Judea, mention being
only made by the evangelists of the appearances of Christ on
‘the first day of the week ;’ namely, on that day wherein he
arose from the dead, and ‘the first day of the week’ following,
John xx. 26. But when the scene is transferred to the Gen-
tiles, then there is very open mention .of it; namely, in this
place, and Acts xx. 7, and Rev. i. Io,
II. For the chief care concerning mentioning the sabbath
was this, that mention might be made of that sabbath which
was to be among the Gentile churches, and was to endure for
ever. And of that, mention is most evidently made in the his-
tory of those churches.
III. Therefore the former silence does by no means argue
that the apostles and disciples in Judea, converted to the
faith, did not celebrate ‘ the Lord’s day, or that they ob-
served it not by divine institution; but by good right and
reason the mention of it is reserved tc its most proper place,
that is, in the story of the Gentile churches.
278 Lebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xvi. 5.
Θησαυρίζων: Laying up.| “ For these (saith Beza) are true
riches laid up in heaven,” &e. By occasion of whose words
let us add these few passages of the same subject:
“ Ak certain woman came to Rabban Jochanan Ben Zac-
cai, and said, ‘ Sir, vouchsafe me sustenance.’ To whom he
answered, ‘And who art thou, my daughter? ‘1, saith she,
‘am the daughter of Nicodemus Ben Gorion.’ ‘ And, rephed
he, ‘O daughter, what is become of the riches of the family
of thy father?’ She answered, nonin yonn a sb ‘5
Von ya rmibry ‘win ‘0 Rabbi, do not they use this proverb
at Jerusalem, The salt of riches is the want of them ?’ TS ON)
OM But those that stood by βαϊώ to her, ‘ But mercy or alms is
their salt.’”’ Where the Gloss is: ‘‘ Whosoever will season
his riches, that is, make them not to putrefy, let him bestow
them in alms; and the want of riches arising from such a
cause is the seasoning of them.”
Ver. 5!: Μακεδονίαν yap διέρχομαι: For I do pass through
Macedonia.| There is a division about the sense and trans-
lation of these words; and here, indeed, the whole hinge of
the controversy turns upon the place whence this Epistle
was writ.
There are some that render it to this sense; “I am now
passing through Macedonia ;” which without doubt he did,
whosoever he were who first joined those words to the end
of the Epistle, Πρὸς Κορινθίους πρώτη ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων"
The First Epistle to the Corinthians™ was written from Phi-
Lippi: and they must do the same who think it sent from
thence.
But the Vulgar and Interlineary interpreter, “ For I shall
pass through Macedonia,” in the future tense, is more true,
and best of all; for that this Epistle was sent from Ephesus
these and other things make plain :
I. That the apostle salutes the Corinthians in the name of
‘the churehes of Asia:’ which it is probable he would not at
all have done if he now were in Macedonia. But be it granted
that he, very lately coming out of Asia, carried the saluta-
tions of those churches along with him, it is as improbable
k Babyl. Chetubb. fol. 66. 2. 1 Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 926.
m English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 794.
Ch. xvi. 8, &e.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 279
that he would not also salute them in the name of the churches
of Macedonia.
II. It appears that he wrote this Epistle before he came
into Macedonia, from what he saith in the Second Epistle,
chap. 11. 12, 13, and vii. 5—7. For when he met not Titus at
Troas, whom together with Stephanas, Fortunatus, and
Achaicus, he had sent to Corinth with this Epistle, nor as
yet could know what fruit it had gained among the Corinth-
ians, he hastened a journey into Macedonia. And when he
came thither and found not Titus there, he stayed for some
time with an unquiet mind, until Titus at last came, the mes-
senger of good news.
III. He saith, ver. 8, ἐπιμενῷ δὲ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ᾽ I shall tarry in
Ephesus: as if he would say, “ Here at Ephesus, where now
I am, I shall remain until Pentecost.”
Ver. 8: ᾿Επιμενῶ δὲ ἐν Edéow But 7 will tarry at Ephesus. |
Whether he tarried at Ephesus until the time determined by
him, [that is, Pentecost,] or the uproar of Demetrius drove
him away thence sooner, is uncertain. Being driven thence,
Macedonia received him,as 15 related, Acts xx: where although
among his travels there is no mention of his journey to Co-
rinth, yet thither he travelled, while his companions went
before to Troas, and expected him there.
Ver. g: Ovpa yap μοι ἀνέῳγε, &e. For a door is opened to
me, ὅ 5.1] See Acts xix. 17-20.
Ver. 10: ᾿Εὰν δὲ ἔλθῃ Τιμόθεος: But if Timothy come.]
This place deceived him again who added the ὑπογραφὴ, the
underwriting, to this Epistle: in whose fancy Timothy was
sent with Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, to bring the
Epistle to the Corinthians: by no light mistake; for Timothy
indeed was sent, but from Ephesus into Macedonia with
Erastus, Acts xix. 22, to see the Corinthians in his return,
but not at all sent thither out of Macedonia by the order of
the apostle, which he dreams of.
Ver. 19: Σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ With the church
that is in their house.| So also it is said of them when they
were come back from Rome, that they had a church in their
house, Rom. xvi.5. And the same is said of Philemon, Phi-
lem. ver. 2, and see Col. iv.15. But in what sense to under-
stand this is somewhat obscure.
280 Hebrew and Talmudical (Ch. xiv. 19.
I. Perhaps there were in Aquila’s house some which tra-
velled with him from Rome, being driven thence by the edict
of Ceesar, and boarded with him in the saine house while they
were in their banishment. But what then shall we say of
them when they went back to Rome to their own dwelling ἢ
and also what shall we say of the church in the house of
Philemon ἢ
Il. Or perhaps Aquila was the church's host, as Gaius was
at Corinth; in whose house were other men and women
appointed to that office with him. And, it may be, he per-
formed the same office at Rome when he went back. And,
it may be, Philemon did the same at Colosse: and thence
that of the apostle to him, ‘‘ Prepare me a lodging,” ver. 22.
But all these things are somewhat uncertain; nor can one see
where to fix his foot. Let me, therefore, add another conjec-
ture also.
III. It° is well enough known what wt MI beth mi-
drash, the divinity school, or the chapel, was among the Jews;
and what the difference was between it and MODIDT Ma
the synagogue. Now beth midrash was called also }]3> As
be rabbanan, the school of the Rabbins. And it is inquired?,
JIAIT NM JIA 3 OND What ts the school of the Rabbins ?
It is the house of the Rabbins. Where the Gloss: “ Why do
they call MIND Δ the divinity schools, ‘be rabbanan ?”
namely, Because it is their house for any use.” In that place
the Gemarists treat of synagogues set apart for holy use;
and how far it was lawful to put them to common uses,
either when they now flourished, or were fallen to decay, and
antiquated as to sacred uses. And concerning the beth
midrash, which was very near of kin to the synagogue, it is
concluded, as you see, that it is as the very house of the Rabbin,
teaching in 104, and to be used by him for any use.
Mention of the 1239 92 be rabbanan, or beth midrash, and
the very thing concerning which we now are speaking, bring
to remembrance the [Pasa be abidan, of which the Tal-
mudists write ; but in a double and various sense. ‘The men-
tion of it oceurs in Babyl. Avodah Zarah*, where it denotes a
heathen temple. R. Eliezer Ben Parta is examined by a
© English folio edit., vol. il. p.795. 4 Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 927-
P Megill. fol. 28. 2. r Fol. 17. 2.
Ch. xvi.1g.] LHxercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 281
Roman magistrate, and, among other things, this is demanded
of him; “ Why did you not go to JIN 2 be abidan, the
Temple? He answered, “1 am an old man, and I was afraid
lest you should tread me under foot.’ To whom the other
replied, ‘Was ever any old man trod under foot? A miracle
happened ; for that very day was an old man trodden upon.”
Where the Gloss, }WAN 1 “ Be Abidanis a house or temple
where they eat and drink in honour of an idol, bot poary
+ vy and void dung (that is, sacrifice) to an idol,” &e.
But elsewhere’ it occurs in another sense : [WAN VAT ED
‘ay “ The books of the ‘be abidan,’ do they snatch them out of
the fire, or do they not snatch them ¢ nbs ys Yes, and no:”
that is, sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. But
what the books of the be abidun were, the Gloss teacheth in
these words; ΩΝ oy mnT> ory ond vans ODD
“ The heretics wrote books of disputations to themselves against
the Jews: Pasa > Ap ow DTDNAW DPD and the
place where the dispute is, is called ‘be abidan.” By heretics, no
doubt is to be made but that Christians are understood ;
and that Je abidan in this place is not to be taken for a hea-
then temple is clear enough from what follows: ‘ Rabh (say
they) went not into be abidan, much less *DYY) Δ into a
heathen templet. Samuel went into a heathen temple, but
went not into be abidan. They said to Rabba, MMS ΝΡ Ὁ
ΤΩΝ als Why went you not to ‘be abidan ?’ he answered,
‘There is a certain palm in the way, and hindereth me.’
‘We will stock it up,’ say they. ‘The place of it,’ saith he,
‘is difficult to me.’”’ The Gloss writes: “ Rabh and Rabba
feared to go into beth abidan, lest in the dispute they might
rise up against them and kill them.”
And now let us return to our own business. What hinders
but that we may be of opinion that the house of Aquila at
Ephesus and Rome, and of Philemon at Colosse, might serve
for such a purpose? namely, sometimes for holy lectures, and
disputes either with Jews or among Christians. Not that the
public assembly in the church should be neglected, but that
some number out of the church—perhaps the whole company
8 Schabb. fol. 116.1. et T. sub v. FI¥ col. 1944. See
t [Domus conflatilium, scil. tma- also sub v. 77928 col. 8.]
ginum, idolorum.—Buxtorf Lex. R.
282 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xvi. 22.
of ministers and teachers—assembled here, and others who
breathed more after gospel mysteries [ad mysteria evangelica
mags adhelarent} ; where the more obscure articles and points
of faith were handled, and disputes were held, if the thing
required it, either among themselves or against the Jews.
Ver. 22: Εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, ἤτω
ἀνάθεμα, μαραναθά" If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let
him be Anathema Maran-atha.| The word anathema sounds
indeed all one with ΓΤ cherem among the Hebrews; as we
may see abundantly (to omit all other examples) in the Seventy
interpreters, in the last chapter of Leviticus compared with —
the Hebrew.
And the word is taken in a threefold sense, especially in the
holy Scripture ; which the author of Aruch notes in the word
Ov cherem, and that from the author of Tosaphotht.
Ι. B35 OWN The anathema, or somewhat devoted to the
priests, that is, something which, being consecrated to God,
necessarily falls to the priests. }))715 ond TS OMS Wee
“ The anathemas of the priests do not admit redemption, but
they are to be given to the priests for Trumah,” or an ob-
lation.
IT. MA WAN An anathema, or that which is devoted to
the Most High. Examples of which you have, Lev. xxvii. 27,
28, &c. Where the Seventy thus, Πᾶν ἀνάθεμα ἅγιον ἁγίων
ἔσται τῷ Κυρίῳ. Hvery anathema shall be holy to the Lord.’
In Babyl. Nedariny it is called DOW Sy Don that which is
devoted to heaven.
ΠῚ. CONT PO DOWD WR OW Ax anathema which is de-
voted of men. Of this, Ley. xxvii. 29: where again the Seventy
thus, Πᾶν ὃ ἐὰν ἀνατεθῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οὐ λυτρωθήσεται,
ἀλλὰ θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται Hvery anathema, or devoted of
men, shall not be redeemed, but shall die the death. But what
is the anathema of men? The author of Tosaphoth answered,
‘Ja min vas ibs He that is condemned to death by the
Sanhedrim. KR. Solomon saith, “ When an Israelite devoted
his manservant or his maidservant, that were Canaanites, to
death.” R. Menahem saith, ‘When the Israelites in war
* Ad Erachin, cap. 4. x English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 796.
ἃ Bab. Erachin, fol. 28. 2. ¥i Fol: 28:5:
Ch. xvi. 22.] Exercitations upon 1 Epist. Corinth. 283
devoted their enemies to destruction if they overcame them,
as was done by them,” Numb. xxi. ‘ Whence? is it that
when any, condemned to die by the Sanhedrim, is led forth
to suffer death, another goes forth interceding and saying,
“1 will pay for his redemption ;’ whence is it, I say, that he
saith this to no purpose? Namely thence, because it is said,
‘Every anathema of men shall not be redeemed, but shall be
punished with death.’ ἢ
If therefore we inquire into the original and proper nature
of this anathema, it was certainly the destining of some male-
factor to most certain death and destruction. Hence is
that in the Chaldee Paraphrast in Isa. xliii. ult.; where, for
pind apy) MIMS L will deliver Jacob* to anathema, he
renders it, ΠΡΟΣ ἽΦΩΝ J will deliver him to be slain.
And now, in rafot ence to the words Maran-atha, very many
commentators agree that this phrase is a certain form of
excommunication, and that it is the highest and heaviest.
‘Thus (say they) is the extremest kind of anathema marked ;
as though he would say, ‘Cursed be he to the coming, and in
the coming, of the Lord.’ ”
They assert this to be the third kind of excommunication
among the Jews, and think that it sounds the same with
NMDW schammatha, and interpret SNW OW God cometh to
the same sense».
But let me, with the leave of so great men, speak freely
what I think in this business.
I, [ have not found in my reading in any places, although
I have sought diligently, in any Jewish writers that I have
perused, where Maran-atha occurs once for a form of excom-
munication. Nor have I found in any Christian writer the
least sign whereby might be shown in what place or in what
Hebrew author that phrase is found in such a sense. Yea, to
speak out plainer, as the thing is, I do not remember that I
have found this phrase, Maran-atha, in any sense at all, in
any Rabbinical or Talmudic writer, at any time, in any
place.
II. But those commentators mentioned do silently confess
that Maran-atha, indeed, in so many syllables, does not occur
2 Bab. Chetubb. fol. 37. 2. Ὁ [See more in Buxtorf Lex. T.
a Leusden’s edition, vol.ii. p.g28. et R. sub v. col. 2466. ]
284 Hebrew and Talmudical [Ch. xvi. 22.
in the Hebrew writers; but ΓῺ schammatha, which speaks
the same thing, occurs very frequently: and so they interpret
NON OW God cometh.
But passing over this, that this interpretation seems to
betray an ignorance of the word MN, from whence scham-
matha is derived, the Talmudists, to whom that word is suffi-
ciently common and well known, produce another etymology
of the word SMVAW schammatha, SMDW ND What? signifies
‘schammatha’? Rabba answered, TMD OW scham metha, There
is death. Samuel answered, SMM OW or TN, Let death be
there, or come thither: as it is written, “* The curse shall come
into the house of the thief, and shall lay it waste,” Zech. v.
They have these and the like sayings, but no mention in them
of NMN OW God cometh.
What the apostle means by Maran-atha we shall more
easily trace when we shall have observed this first, that
the apostle chiefly directs the dint and stroke of this ana-
thema and curse against the unbelieving Jews, who were most
bitter enemies against the Lord Jesus and his gospel : which
I cannot but think, being induced thereunto by these four
reasons :
I. Because the Jews. above all other of the human race,
loved not the Lord Jesus, neither yet do love him. ‘The holy
Scripture teaches this abundantly ; unhappy experience
teaches it. The pagans, indeed, /ove not Christ, because
they know him not: but, because they know him not, neither
do they hate him. The Turks, indeed, /ove not Jesus in that
manner as the Christians do, but they do not hate him in
that manner as do the Jews.
II. Because he speaks here in the language and dialect of
the Jews, namely, in that Syriac phrase, Maran-atha. He
had spoken Greek through the whole Epistle; he speaks
Greek in all his Epistles: but when he speaks heré in the
Jewish language, the thing itself speaks it, without all con-
troversy, that he speaks concerning the Jews.
Ill. The Jews only of all mortals called Jesus accursed
(see chap. xii. 1.): therefore the apostle deservedly strikes
them, above all other mortals, with a curse, rendering like
for like.
b Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16.
Ch. xvi. 22.] Hvxercitations upon τ Epist. Corinth. 285
IV. Hither J, or rather doth the apostle, bring those
words of Isaiah, chap. Ixv. 15, “ Ye shall leave your name
for a curse unto my chosen.” Hither also may be brought
that of Malachi, chap. iv., wherewith the Old Testament is
concluded, OV PSTN WNT SIANIH Lest I come
and smite the land with (anathema) a curse. Lest I come: this
is the same with that which the apostle saith, Maran-atha,
the Lord cometh. And I will smite with anathema, the same
with that in this verse, Let him be anathema. Against whom
is the threatening in the prophet? Against the unbelieving
Jews. Against the same is both the threatening and curse
of the apostle, taken (methinks) out of the very words of the
prophet.
And now you may easily fetch out the sense of the word
Maran-atha. The holy Scripture speaks great and terrible
things concerning the coming of Christ to punish the nation of
the Jews, for their not loving, yea, hating Christ, and treading
the gospel under foot. It is called his ‘ coming in his king-
dom, in the clouds, in glory: which we observe elsewhere.
So that I should much more readily interpret this expression
Maran-atha, that is, οὐ" Lord cometh, in this sense, from this
common manner of speech, and which is so very usual to the
Scripture, than to run to I know not what Jewish form; which
yet is not at all to be met with among the Jews4.
© English folio edit., vol. ii. p.797- foot. It is in vol. v. p. 417 fol. of
d [There is a ἜΣ ad Clerum, Pitman’s Ed. |
de Maranatha, on this text by Light-
286 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. [Ch. 1.
ADDENDA TO CHAP. XIV.‘
That some light may be added to what we spake at chap. xiv, about the
use of an unknown tongue, we thought it not amiss to make a brief dis-
course for the discussing that question, What Bibles were commonly used
in the religious meetings of the Jews ? which discourse we have laid here,
that the continuation of the commentary might not be broken.
CHAE. ,
Concerning the Hebrews and Hellenists.
Wuen the Hellenists and Hebrews are distinguished, Acts
vi. 1, it seems to be less obscure than when distinction is
made between the Hellenists and the Jews, Acts xi. 20: for
that the Hellenists were Jews almost all agree.
The reason of the distinction may be fetched either from
their dispersion or from their language. Διασπορὰ τῶν “EX-
λήνων, the dispersion of the Greeks, John vii. 35, may be plainly
distinguished ἀπὸ τῆς διασπορᾶς τῶν Βαβυλονίων, from the dis-
persion of the Babylonians. The Jews dispersed by the victo-
ries and colonies of the Greeks, from the Jews dispersed by
the Babylonian captivity and the Persian dominion.
But the difference is rather fetched from their language ;
they being called Hebrews to whom the Hebrew was the
mother-tongue, that is, the Syriac or Chaldee; they Hellenists
to whom the Greek language was so.
Under the name of Hebrews, there is none but would place
the Palestinzeans, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Syrians,
if they knew what was the common mother-tongue of all these
countries; especially if they that knew all these countries
were placed by the Talmudists themselves, in effect, under the
same rank and alliance of customs and privileges, as well as
under the same language. Hence are these and such like
expressions to be met with in them:
«ς Whosoever dwells in Babylon is as though he dwelt in
the land of Israel.” “ Allf foreign land is called OT N79
heathen, except Babylon.” Where by "ΕΞ Babylon they
understand all those countries unto which the Babylonian
captivity was carried and led away.
d English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 798. e Bab. Chetub. fol. 421.
—Leusden’s edit., vol. 11. p. 929. f R. Sol. in Git. cap. 1.
Ch. i1.] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 287
And these passages they have of Syria. ‘“ Ing three re-
spects Syria was like to the land of Israel. It was bound
to tithes, and the seventh year; you might go thither in
purity: and he that bought a farm in Syria was as though he
bought one in the suburbs of Jerusalem.” And again”,
“ Syria as to some judgments is as the land of Israel.” And
againi, “ They bring out [the fruits of the seventh year] into
Syria, but not without the land.” Note, that Syria was not
reputed ‘ without the land,’ but in divers things to be united
with Palestine. And many passages of that nature may be
produced both of Syria and of Babylon.
Now then when our discourse is of the Hellenists, the Jews
of these countries and of this language are to be distinguished
from those; not denying nevertheless, that even among these,
here and there, were also Hellenists; as the synagogue of
Alexandria at Jerusalem; they of Czesarea, who “ recited
their phylacteries in the language of the Hellenists ;” and
they of Antioch, of whom mention is made in that place of
the Acts alleged.
Nobody doubts that the Syriac was the mother-tongue of
all Syria ; and yet who will doubt who hath read the history
of the Syro-Grecians, that there were very many in Syria
whose mother-tongue was Greek? And hence that knot is
very easily untied, Acts xi. 20: the dispersed disciples that
preached the gospel found in Antioch some Hedlenists, that
is, whose mother-tongue was Greek, among the Jews, whose
Ἢ mother-tongue was Syriac.
CHAP. II!
Of the Hebrews in Babylon and the adjacent countries.
Tue people that returned from Babylon are numbered,
Hizra ii: and the sum total is computed to be “ forty-two
thousand three hundred and threescore,” ver.64. And yet
the number of the families there particularly reckoned,
amounts not to more than thirty thousand. So that those
twelve thousand which are comprised within the sum total,
and yet are not numbered by their families, were either ple-
5 Gittin, fol. 8. 1. κ Hieros. Sotah, cap. 7.
h Rambam in Demai, cap. 6. 1 English folio edition, vol. ii. p.
i Sheviith cap. 6. hal. 6. 799.
288 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. [Ch. 1].
beians, and persons of no name, or such who could not derive
their genealogy, as ver. 62, or perhaps not a few of them were
of the ten tribes.
But™ how great a multitude of Jews yet remained in Ba-
bylon, when that number went back to their ancient country,
you may conjecture by these two things, to omit others :
I. That of the four-and-twenty courses of the priests there
returned only four, as the Jerusalem Talmudists" observe,
and that well, out of Ezra ii. 36. And although you may
conceive a less proportion by far in the rest of the people, yet
the number of those that tarried behind did far exceed the
number of those that returned.
II. The people had taken root in Babylon, and the seventy
years of the captivity had, in a manner, made them forget
their own country. They had been commanded of God to
build themselves houses, to plant gardens, and to compose
themselves for a long continuance in that place; Jer. xxix.
5,6: and at length necessity passed into pleasure, and having
obtained quiet, commodious, and gainful seats, they judged it
better to be there than to return into an unmanured [incu/tam]
country, full of danger and want.
Hence the masters dispute, Whether that whole company
that went up with Ezra went not up by compulsion: and
bo WIMWHID) ΟΞ WANDS DAD) Wo “ones
master thinks, that in separating they separated themselves, and vo-
luntarily went up. Another master, WAPION WMT bya
that they were carvied away by compulsion.’ For as the
Gloss speaks, ‘“‘ They that remained at Babylon enjoyed their
quiet; but those that went up to Jerusalem were pressed with
poverty, and with all kind of labour and fear, by reason of
those that dwelt about them.”
Concerning those that tarried behind, the Jews themselves
have these words :
I. That a purer blood of Jews remained in Babylon than
was of those that went upP. Because that ‘ Ezra carried
away with him the dregs of the people, and left Babylon like
pure flour?’ that is, as the Gloss writes, ‘“ All that were of
impure blood he carried away thence with him.” Hence is
m Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p.g30. “ Bab. Kiddush. fol. 69. 2.
n Taanith, fol. 68. 1. P. Ib. fol. 27,)1.
Ch. ii. ] _ Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 289
that Saab poy “an Nb now mers Ὁ5. ΑΔ lands
are as a mixed (or impure) lump, compared with the land of
Israel: and the land of Israel is a mixed lump compared with
Babylon ; viz. as to purity of blood.
If. That the blood of the stock of David remained more
noble in Babylon than that which ascended in the family
of Hillel: beeause that was of the male seed. this, of the
female4.
III. Yea, this prevailed with them in the Talmudic times:
“ It is forbidden to go out of Babylon into another land, even
from Pombeditha to Be Cubi; and Rabh Joseph excommu-
nicated one who went from Pombeditha to Be Cubi.”
And if we would propound some specimen of the nume-
rousness of the Jews inhabiting that land, we might take a
view of their three universities under those times, viz. at
Naardea, Sora, and Pombeditha; as also divers other places
famous for Rabbins, such as,
Bethdoli, where R. Nehemiah wast. Which is also called
Bedelis.
The river Pekod, where R. Jacob was'.
Bagdat, where R. Channah was".
Coreonia, where R. Chaijah *.
The town Mahaziah, where were doctors equal with those
of Pombedithay. But let us offer some kind of geographical
table of the countries in Babylon, where the Jews dwelt, as it
is represented by the Talmudists.
“Ὁ Rabhz Papa the aged, in the name of Rabh, saith ; δ Ὰ
ΓΙ ΝΞ, Babylon is ἦγ) health: TMD pwn, Meson is dead:
Men M7, Media is sick: DVOD ody, Persia is expiring.”
That is, the Glosser being interpreter, “ In Babylon the Jews
are of pure blood: in Meson, all are illegitimate: in Media,
many are of pure blood and many not: in Persia, there are
very many not of pure blood, and a few that are pure.”
They* go on: 53 3° jaw Ty “ How far is Babylon
eatended ὃ Rabh saith, pry WI TW Unto the river Azek.
Samuel saith, (NY AID Ty Unto the river Juani. And how
a Juchas. f.89.1. Bab. Chetub. x Jevam. fol. 67. 1.
ΕΠ) ie y Chetub. fol. 4. 1. and fol. 55. 1.
2 Kiddush. fol. 71. 2.
a
English folio edition, vol. ii. p.
t Zevach. f.6.1. ¥% Ib. f.9.1. 800.
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. U
290 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. {Ch ii.
far above, near Diglath? Rabh saith, FINN NWA ἫΝ Unto
Bagdaah and Avana. Samuel saith, ΣΟ TW Unto Mus-
cant. But Museani itself is not within the border. But
R. Chaija Bar Abba saith, that Samuel saith, that Muscani is
as the captivity, [that is, Pombeditha,] as to genealogies.
To Museani, therefore, is so to be understood as that Mus-
eani is within the border. Within, near Diglath, how far?
To lower Apamia. For there were two Apamias, one the
upper, and another the lower. In one were Jews of pure
blood, in the other not. And between them was the space of
four thousand paces.”
‘‘Above, towards Euphrates, how far? Rabh saith, Ty
sm NAPS Unto Acra Tulbankana. Samuel saith,
Unto the bridge of Euphrates. R. Jochanan saith, Unto the
passage NPAT of Gizma.”
From the river Azek.| Thence, perhaps, the town Azochis,
of which Plinya.
SPINY WI The river Juani, or Joani,| is perhaps the same
with Oena in Marcellinus >.
nbn Diglath.| ‘Tigris where it was slower than Dig-
litus, whence it riseth, from its swiftness began to be called
Tigris*.”
Of Apamia]| Ptolemy and Pliny both speak.
sapadin Tulbankana‘.| Among the cities near a part of
Euphrates, according to Ptolemy, is Θελβενκάνη, Thelbenkane,
in degree 38. 30. 35. 30.
To all this that hath been spoken may also be added, that,
in the Notitia Imperii, under the disposition of the honour-
able person the duke of Osrhoena, were ‘ Equites promoti
indigenze Syrie Judzorum:’ Promoted horse, inhabitants of
Syria of the Jews: and that in Pliny there was a country
called Palestine in these regions, concerning which we are
now speaking ; which whether they do not savour of Jewish
inhabitants we leave to conjecture.
Let that also of Marcellinus be addede: ‘* Near the place
where the greater part of Euphrates is divided into many
® Tab, vi. c. 27. 4 Lieusden’s edition, vol. ii. p.931.
Ὁ [Intra Onam et Tigridem sita e Ammian. Marcellin, lib. xxiv.
fluvios. Amm. Marcell. xxiii. 6.20.] [4.1.]
¢ Plin. lib. vi. cap. 27.
Ch. iii.] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 291
rivers, in this tract a city being deserted by the Jews that
were inhabitants in it, because of its low walls, was fired by
a band of enraged soldiers.”
CHA Po 1]:
In the same regions were the seats of the ten tribes.
Tracing the seat of the ten tribes by the light of the
Scriptures and the Talmudists, we find they were placed in
Assyria, and Babylon, and the bordering countries; disposed
under their captivity in those very lands wherein the divine
counsel had decreed the two tribes also should be disposed,
when they should undergo the same lot: that those tribes
which had bordered upon each other in their own land, should
border also upon each other in a strange land: and that
they, whom God had united in the promise of their future
eall, should be also united in the same habitations, that they
night be called together.
Those that were carried away from their own land, “ the
king of Assyria placed in Halach and Chabor, near the river
Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes,” 2 Kings xvii. 6, and
XVill. 11.
The Talmudists do thus comment upon the places named :
«Ἐς, Abbaf Bar Chana saith,
smantn ΠῚ mon Halac is Halvaoth.
saa Mm Wan Habor is Adiabene.
1 PIPA TM WA Wid The river Gozan is Ginzak. “R. Akiba’
preacheth in Ginzak in Media.”
STPMNIIM PVT Ww NA Wy “ The cities of the Medes
are Chemdon and its fellows. But there are some who say,
moran wh Nikar and its fellows. What are those
fellows? Samuel saith, 72wWwW Muschi, TT Midki, O97
Domki.”
These things are repeated elsewhere, and that with this
variation of the names.
ἐγ στ mdr Chalah is Chalzon.
pan Wm My “ The cities of the Medes are Tamdan
and its fellows. But there are some that say, I2V73 Neh-
vanad, and its fellows. What are these fellows? Samuel
f Bab. Jevam. fol. 16. 2. & Beresh. Rabba, ὃ. 33.
h Kiddush. fol. 72. 1.
ὉΠ.
299 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. [Ch. iii.
saith, The towns 32wWyd Muschi, sw Chushki, and pan
Romki.”
Of the rendering non Chalah, although the Gemarists do
not exactly agree among themselves, one while interpreting
it by mtn Haleaoth, another while by mion Chalzon ;
yeti they disagree not about the situation of the place, when
in both places they join it to Adiabene. And in the place
last cited they so apply those words of Daniel, | yoy noms
PPM Pi rapa And three ribs within his mouth, Dan. vii. Le
R. Jochanan interpreting, “are mon Chalzon, AWA) and
Adiabene, YA) and Nesibis.”
I ask whether non Chalzon be not illy written for mbn
Chalvaon, (by the likeness of the letters Ἢ (Vau) and } (Zain) )
which comes nearer to minbn Halvaoth, and both agree
with ᾿Αλουανὶς, Alvanis, which was a city in Mesopotamia, in
Ptolemy, in degree 74.15. 35.20. In the same author‘, the
river XaBepas Chaboras bears the memory of Chabor, and
Χαλκίτις, Chalecitis, bears that of Chalach, and Γαυζανίτις,
Gauzanitis, that of Gozan. ΓΙ The river Adiab, whence
the country of Adiabene, of most noted fame. See Ammianus
Marcellinus!.
These things the Jews speak of the first seats of the ten
tribes: and that they also remained there in afterages, they
are so assured, that 1 in the Talmudists NOW perp? powiwn
NYT Ouawr “MD provision™ is made concerning espousals,
that they contract not with any of the ten tribes. And the Gloss
there is, ΟΣ WD NIM Wo wens. Ln those places
were very many of the ten tribes.
And while the masters strictly provide that the stocks of
pure blood be preserved, and name very many places in
Babylon, and the countries adjacent, where families of pure
blood were, and where they were not; they point with the
finger, as to others, so also to the ten tribes residing there,
as people of impure blood, and with whom they were not to
mingle.
But now if the seats, cities, countries of the ten tribes in
the times of the Talmudists were so well known, much more
' Bnglish folio edit., vol. il. p. 801. ΤΩΡ. xxii. (6. 20. ]
k Ptol. Tab. 4. Asie de situ Mesopot. ™ Jevamoth, in the place above.
Ch. iii. ] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 293
were they so in the times of the apostles ; which were not so
far removed from their first captivity. That people, therefore,
in that time skulked [datui¢] not in I know not what unknown
land, [a thing now conceived of them, ] but that the preaching
of the apostles came also to them, as well as to other na-
tions. One may say this with the greatest assurance upon
the credit of St. James, who writes his Epistle to the whole
twelve tribes, and also upon the credit of the author of the
Apocalypse, in whom the twelve tribes are sealed, chap. vil.
And the words of our Saviour argue the same thing re-
specting the twelve" apostles, that were to judge the twelve
tribes, implying that they all twelve heard of the sound of
the gospel, concerning the reception or rejection of which that
judgment was to be.
Under this notion, unless I am much mistaken, is the
apostle to be understood treating of the calling of Israel,
Rom. xi; not of the Jews only, but of the whole twelve tribes
of Israel, δωδεκαφύλου. And this is that mystery concerning
which he speaks at ver. 25, namely, that hardness, or “ blind-
ness happened to Israel ἀπὸ μέρους by parts, or separately ;”
first, the ten tribes were blinded, and some hundreds of years
after, the two tribes: and both the one and the other remained
under that state until the fulness of the Gentiles came in,
when the gospel entered; and ‘so all Israel,’ δωδεκάφυλος,
the whole twelve tribes, namely, they who were λεῖμμα, the rem-
nant, κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος, according to the election of grace,
ver. 5, were saved. For those words ἄχρις οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν
ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ. until the fulness of the Gentiles come im, are not
so to be understood, as if the gathering of the last handful of
the harvest of the Gentiles were to be expected before that
ealling of all Israel: but they are opposed to that seldom
coming in of heathens to true religion before the preaching
of the gospel. For at that time they were added to the
church by drops only, and very rarely : but when the gospel
entered, they flowed in as in a full stream, καὶ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πλη-
ρώματι τῶν ἐθνῶν, and in the whole fulness of the Gentiles. And
so (which is a great mystery) first the Gentiles were blinded,
and after them the ten tribes were blinded, and after them
the two tribes were blinded; all lying under that miserable
n Leusden’s edition, vol. 11. p. 800.
294 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. (Ch. iv.
condition, until all at last were enlightened by the gospel, and
closed together into one body. And that the apostle spake
of his own times, when the gospel was now newly brought to
the Gentiles, he himself sufficiently ratifies and makes known
by those words, ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, at this present time, ver. 5.
CHAP, IV.°
Peter preaching the gospel in Babylon.
Tue whole world, therefore, being thus divided into Israel-
ites and Gentiles; and the Israelites again into the ten tribes
and the Jews; and the Jews again into Hebrews and Hel-
lenists; and the Hebrews into those who dwelt within the
land of Israel, and those that dwelt without it; hence some-
thing may be observed which concerns the evangelical and
apostolic history.
I. And this first, as to the four evangelists, namely, that
Matthew writ for the Hebrews within the land of Israel and
Syria: Mark, for the Hebrews, without the land in Babylon
and Assyria; where also were the ten tribes: John for the
Hellenists : Luke for the Gentiles.
11. Then when James, Peter, and John are celebrated for
the three apostles of the circumcision, Gal. 11.9, hence one
may fitly distinguish each apostle’s diocess: viz. Palestine, and
which borders upon and is reckoned with it, Syria, to James ;
Babylon and Assyria to Peter; and the Hellenists, especially
of Asia, and such as were further off, to John.
Babylon, I say, and Assyria to Peter: which he him-
self confirms when he dates his First Epistle from Babylon ;
and in his Second, banyan Hep useth the Babylonian
idiom. You would believe the word ‘ Bosor’ to be pronounced
for ‘ Beor, chap. ii. 15; or it was a solecism of Peter, or an
error of the transcribers: but it savours of the Chaldee dia-
lect, and plainly teaches what that Babylon was where Peter
then was.
It was ordinary with the Chaldeans to change W (Schin)
into 3’ (Ain); and on the contrary y (Ain) into τὸ (Schin): w
into Y, as Ὁ Shepham, into ΓΛ Apamia, Num. xxxiv.
11,12: where see the Targums, Samaritan, and Jerusalem,
and Jonathan. ὍΔ a bill of contracts, into Δ, in the
© English folio edit., vol. 11. p. 766. P See Kiddush. fol. 71. 2.
Ch. v.]} Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 295
Talmudists; and divers others of that nature. And y into
W or Ὁ, as in Ἴνα witness, TW, the letter ™ (He) only put
in; and ἫΝ until, in the Samaritan dialect, is changed into
YD, with a letter in like manner put in. So py to divide,
is also PD, and syd a cheek, is also mons; and very many
of the like variation; which, being observed, do openly testify
that Peter was in Babylon of Chaldea, and spoke Chaldee
when he said ΩΣ Bosor for ἋΣ Beor.
Nor was there in all the world any country in which that
great apostle of circumcision could preach more agreeably
and suitably to his office, than in Babylon and the adjacent
places; where were Hebrews of the purest blood, and where
the ten tribes were ‘ the circumcision’ in its full name.
Hitherto we have traced the Hebrews, or those Jews whose
mother-tongue was Syriac or Chaldee, namely, the Pales-
tinians, Syrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, and
an infinite number of Israelites of the ten tribes sprinkled
among them, using also the same language. Now let us see
briefly what Bibles were used in their synagogues.
CHA PAV:
The Hebrew Bible read in the synagogues of the Hebrews.
Tuer Jerusalem Talmudists4 say, “ ‘There were five things
wanting under the second Temple which were under the first;
the fire from heaven, the ark, Urim and Thummim, the oil
of anointing, and the Holy Spirit,” or the Spirit of pro-
phecy™: let the Hebrew tongue, the prophetic language, be
added also.
Of the Spirit of prophecy the Babylonian Talmudists* have
these words also: “ Frem the death of the latter prophets,
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit ceased from
Israel.” In the first generation, indeed, after the return out
of Babylon, that the gift of prophecy flourished, those pro-
phets, and indeed very many others do witness, if we believe
the Masters of the Traditions. For thus they speakt:
“ Among the eighty elders who opposed the statute of Esther
and Mordecai, concerning the feast of Purim, as if it were an
innovation in the law, more than thirty were prophets.” But
4 Taanith, fol. 56. 1. s Sotah, fol. 24. 2.
τ Leusden’s edition, yol. 11. p. 932. τ Hieros. Megil. fol. 70. 4.
296 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. [Ch. v.
that generation being" extinct, the gift of prophecy vanished
also, and appeared no more before the morning of the gospel.
To this that of St. John hath respect, chap. vil. 38, οὔπω ἦν
πνεῦμα ἅγιον, the Holy Ghost was not yet ; and Acts xix. 2,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιόν ἐστιν ἠκούσαμεν, we have not heard
whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Whether the use of the mother Hebrew tongue was con-
tinued in that first generation, as the gift of propheey was
continued, we shall not dispute: this certainly we cannot
pass by, that those books of the sacred canon which were
writ in that generation, viz. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, (only a little in the
Book of Ezra excepted,) all were written in the Hebrew
language.
Whether the Hebrew language were at that time the vulgar
speech or not, without all doubt, in the ages following, the
Syriac or Chaldee was the mother-tongue both in Babylon
and Palestine: and yet the Hebrew Bible was read in their
synagogues, not understood by the common people, but ren-
dered into Chaldee, their vulgar tongue, by an interpreter.
The Gemarists assert that it was so done in that first
generation, while they thus explain those words of Nehemiah,
chap. vill. 8: “They* read in the law of God, δ ΡΞ, in the
Hebrew text, DIAN MI WH explaining it, that is, with the
Targum.”
In all the following ages these things obtained: “Ify any
write the holy books in any language, or in any character, yet
he shall not read in them [publicly in the synagogue], ἽΝ
MVWS FANS OW, waless they be written in Hebrew.”
“R. Samuel? Bar Rabh Isaac went into the synagogue, and
saw a minister there interpreting, and not any standing by
him for an interpreter. He saith to him, This is forbidden
you: for as the law was given by a mediator, so it is to be
handled with a mediator’? Hence were there so many and
so accurate canons concerning an interpreter in the syna-
gogues.” Ποὺ that reads in the law, let him not read to the
interpreter more at one time than one verse.” The Gloss
“ Bnaglish folio edit., vol. 11. p.803. y Massech. Sopher. cap.1. hal. 6.
x Megil. fol. 3.1. Nedarim, fol. z Hieros. Megil. fol. 74. 4.
27, 2, a Bab. Megill. fol. 23. 2.
Ch. vi. | Addenda to \ Cor. xiv. 997
saith, “Lest the interpreter mistake.” And, “ The» deed
of Reuben is read, but it is not interpreted. The deed of
Thamar is read, but it is not interpreted. The first history
of the golden calf is read and interpreted: the second is read,
but is not interpreted.” Where the Gloss is, ‘ That history
which Aaron himself relates of the calf, is called the second
history of the calf. In it are these words, M37 bya NI,
And there came out this calf. Therefore that story is not
interpreted, lest the common people err and say, That there
was something that came forth from itself. But they under-
stood not the Hebrew text itself.” Let that be marked.
The Gemarists go on: “ R. Chaninah Ben Gamaliel went to
Chabul, and hearing there a minister of the synagogue read-
ing those words, Syne ἸΞΩΞ WM And it came to pass
when Israel dwelt, he said to the interpreter, Be silent, and
interpret not; and the wise men commended him.”
Very many passages of that nature might be produced,
whereby it appears plain that the Hebrew text was read in
the synagogue of the Hebrews, that is, of those of Babylon
and Palestine, and whose soever mother-tongue was Syriac
or Chaldee. But whether it were read in the synagogues of
the Hellenists, further inquiry must be made.
CHAR. Vik
What the Jews think of the versions.
Txosr canons which we have cited concerning reading and
interpretation, do they bind the Jews, Palestinians, and Baby-
lonians only? or other Jews and the whole nation wheresoever
dispersed? Those canons are in both Talmuds, and as all
other traditions comprised in that book do bind the whole
nation, unless where the reason of times and the difference of
places dispense, so why should not these bind concerning
reading the Law and the Prophets in the synagogues out of
the Hebrew text ?
The whole Jewish nation were carried away with the highest
zeal and veneration towards the Hebrew text, which to neglect
in the synagogues was accounted among them for a high
impiety. It was read in the synagogues of the Hebrews, and
rendered very frequently in the very words of Onkelos and
> Tbid. fol. 25.1.
298 Addenda to τ Cor. xiv. (Ch. vi.
Jonathan. And why were not the Targumists themselves
read rather, and the business done by fewer? Because the
original text is by no means to be neglected. And why the
Hellenists should be cooler in this business than the Hebrews,
who ean give a reason ?
Therefore, how much the more zeal and honour they had
for the Hebrew text, so much the less grateful to them was
the version of it into another tongue. For they thought so
much of honour, virtue, and worth departed from the holy
text, as that language or those very letters were departed
from.
I. Inc that canon OTT AN ONNYYD WIPM aN the
holy books pollute the hands; whereby, as they say, the worth
of those books is proved, if there be made any change of the
language or characters, so much they believe the nobility of
them is diminished4. For “the Targum, if it be written in
Hebrew, and the Hebrew Bible, if it be written in the lan-
guage of the Targum, and the writing changed, [ scriptura trans-
amnana, | they defile not the hands; and indeed those books
do not defile the hands, unless they be written in Hebrew.”
II. It is disputede, “ Whether it be lawful to snatch the
holy books out of the fire on the sabbath-day,” when that
cannot be done without some labour. And it is coneluded
without all seruple, that if they are wrote in Hebrew, they
ought to be snatched out; but if in another language, or in
other characters, then it is doubted. Yea, R. Jose saith,
“ They are not to be snatched out.” ,
III. It is disputed further, 73 wand “ND ON ‘If the
holy books so written shall come to your hands,’ whether you
may destroy them with your own hand, either by eutting or
tearing them, or throwing them into the fire; and it is con-
cluded, indeed, in the negative: which yet is to the same
effect as though it were determined in the affirmative. “Let
them be laid up (say they) in some foul place, where they may
be consumed by themselves.”
And it is related of Rabban Gamaliel first, that when
DIAN AVN AHH the Book of Job, made into a Targum, was
brought to him, he commanded that it should be buried
© English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 804. d Jadaim, cap. 4. hal. 5.
—Leusden’s edition, vol. ii. p. 934. © Schabb. fol. 115. 1.
Ch. vii.] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 299
under a heap of stones. Which example also a certain Rab-
bin afterward urgeth to his great grandson Gamaliel, that he
also should bury under ground the Book of Job Targumized,
which he had in his hand, to be consumed.
The Book of Job Targumized was that book translated into
the Chaldee language, the mother-tongue of the nation, the
tongue into which the Law and the Prophets were rendered
in the synagogues; and yet by no means did they tolerate
the version of that book, (which, indeed, was not read in the
synagogues,) though rendered in that language ; much less
would they tolerate the version of the Law and the Prophets
into a more remote and more heathen language.
These things well considered, one may with good reason
suspect that the Jews thought not so honourably of any ver-
sion, as to cast away the Hebrew Bible, and to espouse that
in the room of it. And what they might or did think con-
cerning the Greek version of the LXX, as it is called, let us,
as much as we can, briefly search.
CHAP. VII.
A comparison of the history of the LX Χ, as tt is in
Josephus, and as it is in the Talmudists.
Tue story as it is in Josephus and Aristeas hath no need
to be repeated, being so well known to all. From which how
vastly different is it from the story as it is related in the
Talmudists! which we transcribe verbatim from MJassecheth
Sopherim thus :
monn ax qboon ondnd πο Op Awona πον
nov τ πῶ ovo ΝΣ AwP OYA mM sayy
mona mwyo aw ΠΡῸΣ b> OND ADD AN ANT
Dw yaw. Ow : Ow OW yaw ow Ton
sax) tnx 555 ono : ὩΣ πὸ by ond ada gd) Ὁ ΠΣ
Owen wd :O227 Awe nn > and on ἼΩΝ OND
WIND) : ΠΠΝ nyt ynyt ww DM WAN IAN 9D 203 Πὰν
Sow ἼΔΥ Ἣν nwo : ΠΝ 53 AN 9
There is a story of five elders who transcribed the law for
Ptolemy the king in Greck. And that day was bitter to Israel
f Cap. 1.
300 Addenda to τ Cor. xiv. [Ch. vil.
as the day wherein the golden calf was made; because the law
could not be turned according to all things requisite to it. And
again there is a story of king Ptolemy, that he assembled seventy-
two elders together, and disposed them into seventy-two cells,
(domunculis;] but he revealed not to them why he had assembled
them. But coming in to every one of them, he said to them,
‘ Write me out the law of Moses your master. God put counsel
into each of their hearts, that their minds agreed in one. And
they wrote out for him the law by itself; but they changed thir-
teen places in ttt.
The Babylonian Talmud! relates the story in the like
manner, this only excepted, that there is no mention of the
five elders ; as also that this clause is wanting, “ They wrote
out the law for him by itself.”
I. sJosephus" speaks glorious things of letters sent from
the king to the high priest sending for interpreters, of pre-
sents sent to Eliezer, and other things consecrated to the
Temple, of many talents spent by Ptolemy for the redemption
of the Jews, of honourable rewards conferred upon the inter-
preters: all which, according to the account of Josephus and
Aristeas, amounted to such a sum, that one might with reason
believe the whole Alexandrian library was not worth so much;
yea, a whole year’s tax of Egypt would scarcely have been of
that value.
But of all this there is deep silence in the Talmudists; and
yet usually they want not either for will or elocution when
something is to be declared for the glory of their own nation.
They are not silent of the gifts of Monobazus and Helena',
Nicanor, Ben Cattin, &e.; of the gifts of princes either given
or lent to their Rabbins; but of these vast expenses of Pto-
lemy there is not one syllable.
ΤΠ. In Josephus the interpreters are sent for by letters,
and that under that notion that they should interpret. But
in the Talmudists they are convened, being altogether igno-
rant what they must do.
III. In Josephus they turn (the law at least) into Greek :
in the Talmudists it is obscure whether they translated any
thing at all. Of the five elders, indeed, it is said in terms
! In Megill. h English folio edit., vol. i. p.805.
& [Antiq. xii. 2. | i Leusden’s edition, vol.ii. p. 025.
Ch. vii. | Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 301
that MI IND they transcribed in Greek, that is, they
turned, as the word which followeth DINMM> to interpret,
sufficiently explains. But of the Seventy there is no such
thing: but only this, TARY HD AVN WNW “ that they
transcribed the law by itself, and changed thirteen places
in it.”
There is a passage indeed where the Babylonian Talmudists
are brought in with their relation, whereby one might think
that they intimated that the Seventy translated into’Greek.
‘** Our masters (say they‘) permitted not that the Holy Books
should be transcribed but into Greek. And it is a tradition.
ἬΝ Judah saith, When they permitted to transcribe in Greek,
they permitted it of the Book of the Law only; Dw)
qbnn ΣΤ Mwy and that because of that which happened
to king Ptolemy : or let it be as it is rendered by some,
Whence the work was begun with Ptolemy the king.
But if any should say that they transcribed, indeed, in
Greek, that is, the Hebrew text in Greek letters, and trans-
lated not, you would scarcely refute him out of the Talmud-
ists; especially when elsewhere they distinguish between
writing out γιοῦ 653 in any language', that is, in the cha-
racters of any language; and writing out mw boa own
by a version into any language: and when there was a publi-
cation and edition of a double Hebrew text in Origen’s Hex-
apla and Octapla™, δι’ “EBpaixév καὶ ᾿Ελληνικῶν στοιχείων, in
Hebrew and Greck characters, he seems not to have been with-
out his copy, in which the Hebrew text itself was written out
in Greek letters.
What at length does that mean, They wrote out the law by
self? Certainly either this, They transeribed the law only,
and not the other books; or rather, They transcribed the
Hebrew law itself in Hebrew, and turned it not.
‘They wrote out (say they) the law by itself, and changed
thirteen places in 10. The examination of the latter clause
will yield light to the former, and will give its vote to him
that says, That it does not appear in the Talmudists that the
LXX translated at all, but that they only transcribed the
Hebrew books in Hebrew.
k Megil. fol. 9. 1. ' Schabb. fol. 115. 1.
m Kpiphan. Heres. 63.
302 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. [ Ch. viii.
CHAP. VIII
Of the thirteen places that were changed.
Bora Talmuds, as also other Rabbins who relate the story
of the seventy elders, add always this, that “they changed
thirteen places in the law: which they also reckon up. But
now, when those different readings are not found in the
Greek version, that story is exploded by the most as a mere
fiction; when indeed the change was not in the version, but
in the Hebrew transcription. Let the thing speak itself :
They wrote, say they, MwN 2 ΒΡ ONT? δὰ «(ρα created
in the beginning, Gen. 1.1. not Oro N73 noe In the
beginning God created ; lest the king should say, Bereshith is
God, and there were two powers, and the first created the
latter™.” But now, in the Greek version, it was impossible
that such a scruple should arise ; it could arise only from the
Hebrew" text : and it must necessarily be that this change,
intended for an amendment, should be reckoned to be in the
Hebrew words themselves.
They write TAMPA MW powmM And Sarah laughed
among her neighbours, Gen. xviil. 12, for FIDVWA within herself.
They wrote SMNW) OTD INN WN ace Whatsoever was
desirable I took not from them, Numb. xvi. 15, for ΓΤΙΣ aan
one ass Now who will doubt but that the change was made
in the Hebrew words themselves? In the former from the
affinity of the words; in the latter from the similitude of the
letters.
But instead of more, let this one example serve. They
wrote Ea) 222 “WNT ON mown And he sent worthy
men® of the children of Israel, Vixod. xxiv. 5, for “\YI-NS
young men. Now if it be asked whether they wrote the very
word "ONT, or the sense of it in the Greek language, the
Jerusalem Gemarists witness, that that very same word was
written by them in this story: ‘“ Three books (say they) were
found in the court of the Temple. In one of them was writ-
ten ὉΠ Piya, Deut. xxxiil. 27. In two was written Fp.
They received those two, and they rejected the third. In one
was written Syn ὯΔ COWONT AN ΠΤ He sent worthy
m See the Gloss in Megill. and © [Quid si vertas minores, plebeios
fol. g. 1. ex significatione 01}. Buxtorf L.
n English folio edit., vol.ii. p.806. T. et R. sub vy. oy? col. 682.)
Ch. ix.] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 303
men of the children of Israel. In two was written, M8 aby
baw ὋΣ “3 He sent young men of the children of Israel :
they received those two, and rejected the third. In one was
written ST PWN, nine. In two was written δ ΓΤ TTS
eleven. They received those two, and rejected the third.”
Now it may be asked, What, I pray, were those two copies
in which it was written ΓΙ), and “VY, and TAWY ATS?
They were Hebrew copies, without? all controversy: and so
was that without all doubt in which it was written py and
DION and ὉΠ.
There is no reason, therefore, why that tradition of the
thirteen places changed should bear so ill a report, and be
accounted for a fiction, because those thirteen alterations are
not met with in the Greek version : for the Talmudists plainly
treat of the Seventy-two, not translating out of Hebrew, but
transcribing the Hebrew books themselves.
Let us also add the introduction that the Jerusalem writers
make to this history: “ The Jerusalem Talmudists (say
they) wrote man pon ΓΝ pes ΓΙ ΘΟ nowy
Jerusalem, Jerushlema, Tzaphon, Tzephona, Teman, Temna :”
that is, they changed the writing of these Hebrew words :
and immediately they add, spon mao ww at τ
qban The wise men altered thirteen places for Ptolemy the king.
Which is also to be understood of the Hebrew words them-
selves: otherwise this does not suit with what goes before.
ΟΗΑΡ. ΙΧ.
In what value ‘ the version of the Seventy, as it is commonly
called, seems to have been among the Jews.
Tuvs it remains doubtful whether the Talmudists acknow-
ledge any version of the Seventy-two elders or no. Let it be
granted, therefore, that they attributed θευπνευστίαν, divine
inspiration, to them from hence, that being put asunder, yet
they all conspired in one mind and sense; nevertheless, it will
not at all follow thence that any honour was given by them to
this version, which is carried about under that name.
One may much more readily perceive in it the breath of
Jewish traditions than any inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
And although their own traditions were of account certainly
P Leusden’s edit., vol. 11. p. 936. 4 Megill. fol. 71. 4.
304 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. (Ch. ix.
to the nation, and, for the patronising them, many things
seem to be put into the version which favour them, yet this
did by no means so much obtain with them as that they
valued the version above the Hebrew original, and that they,
easting away that, made choice of this to themselves; but
they always reserved to the Hebrew text its due honour.
I. What the learned among them might judge of the Greek
version, one may somewhat guess from hence, that even a
Christian himself, seriously reading and viewing it, may ob-
serve many things in it whereby he may discover by what
counsels, cautions, and eraftiness, that version was published :
especially if, together with it, he hath in his eye the manners,
traditions, ordinances, and state of the Jewish nation; to
which allusion is very frequently made, and respect had by
those interpreters. The matter may be illustrated by one or
two examples as to their traditions.
Gen. xx. 18: Ὅτι συγκλείων συνέκλεισε Κύριος ἔξωθεν πᾶσαν
μήτραν" Because the Lord in shutting up every womb without.
Whence comes the putting in of the word ἔξωθεν, without? It
agrees with the tradition, that the wombs were barred up
against copulation’.
Exod.’ xxiv. 10: Εἶδον τὸν τόπον οὗ εἱστήκει ὁ Θεός: They
saw the place where God had stood, instead οἵ εἶδον τὸν Θεὸν
τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ, they saw the God of Israel. Compare the tract
Kiddushin' with this; where the Gloss is this, “* R. Hananael
saith, He that renders Osr Toyo INT) they saw
the God of Israel, is a liar,” ὅσο. See the notes before at
chap. xiv. ver. 2.
Deut. xxx. 6: Kal περικαθαριεῖ Κύριος τὴν καρδίαν σου, And
the Lord shall purify thy heart. And Josh. v. 4,“Ov δὲ τρόπον
περιεκάθαρεν ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς υἱοὺς “Iopajd: After which manner
Joshua purified the children of Israel, for περιέτεμεν, he circum-
cised ; in a sense too much inclining to the trifling praises of
circuincision among the masters.
Whence are those words taken? Josh. xxi. 42, and xxiv. 30:
᾽Εκεῖ ἔθηκαν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Ἰησοῦ) εἰς τὸ μνῆμα, eis ὃ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν
ἐκεῖ τὰς μαχαίρας τὰς πετρίνας, ἕο. There they laid with him
(Joshua) into the sepulchre, in which they buried him; TI say,
there they laid the stone knives,’ &c. And 2 Sam. xxi.11;
τ Bava Kama, fol. 92.1. S English folio edit., vol. ii. jp. 807.
t Fol. 49.1.
Ch. ix.] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 305
Kal ἐξελύθησαν, καὶ κατέλαβεν αὐτοὺς Δὰν vids “lod ἐκ τῶν ἀπο-
γόνων τῶν γιγάντων" And they died, and Dan the son of Joa, of
the sons of the giants, took them.
1 Sam. i. 21, this clause is added, καὶ πάσας τὰς δεκάτας τῆς
γῆς αὐτοῦ: and all the tithes of his land; according to the ¢a-
nons of the nation concerning offering tithes at the feast.
2 Kings ii. 1, ““ When God would take up Elias in a whirl-
wind, ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, as into heaven ;” so ver. 11, agreeing
with the opinion of the nation concerning the ascension of
Klias very near to heaven, but not into heaven itself¥.
1 Chron. ix. 31, Tod τηγάνου τοῦ μεγάλου ἱερέως" the pan of
the high priest: from the noted fame Syn ᾿Ξ ΕΠ ΝΜ
the high priest’s pan. See Menacothy, and in other places
very frequently.
Psalm 11. 12, Δράξασθε παιδείας" take hold of instruction ;
instead of VA-3W1 kiss the Son. “ Bar*® signifies nothing
else but the law, as it is said, ἽΠΠΩ kiss the Son.”
We omit more passages of the same observation and sus-
picion; and they are not a few.
II. We may observe in the Jerusalem Talmudists, that the
Greek version of Aquila is sometimes quoted, but that of the
Seventy never.
STs Ὁ» ox Aguilas renders (wD) “NA
tablets, Isa. 111. 20,) στομοκήρια, stomachers.
sonen> bapb snes Sapb pospy onn Aquila’
renders NAWII apo over against the , Dan. v. 5,
over against the lamps.
2d PY WAND NIT He shall be our guide unto death,
(Psalm xlviii.14,) SYOINTN pony DAWN Aquila renders
ἀθανασία, immortality.
yada Fruit® of goodly trees, (Lev. xxiii. 40.)
ΗΝ. Periohtinin saith, “ATT Ty po»py pan Aquila renders
Yy Liz, ὕδωρ, water ;” if his τ{π|τ ἢν fail not in the inter-
pretation. See4 also Bereshith Rabbae.
ἃ Succah, fol. 5.1. a Joma, fol. 41.1.
Vv Cap. 11. hal. 3. b Megill. fol. 73. 2.
x Sanhed. fol. 92. 1. ¢ Succah, fol. 54. 4.
Υ Schabb. fol. 8. 2. 4 Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p. 937.
z [A.V. In the margin— houses © Fol. 14. 2, et fol. 19. 1, ὅτ.
of the soul. |
LIGHTFOOT, VOL. IV. xX
306 Addenda to1 Cor. xiv. Ἢ (OR. i:
But 1 do not remember that I have found one clause alleged
out of the version of the Seventy in the whole Talmud, either
one or other.
Let it also be added, that! ‘the book of Ben Syra’ is a
prohibited book; and yet you may find it cited in both Tal-
muds: in that of Jerusalem, in the tract Beracoths ; where
it seems to be the book of Syracides: but otherwise in divers
other places. But I do not, I say, remember that I have
found the version of the Seventy alleged in any place; and I
searce think that such an allegation could pass me unob-
served. Which thing more increaseth my suspicion that
those Jews owned not such a version, and that they under-
stood the transcription of the Seventy not to be the version
of, but the copying out, the very Hebrew text itself. And as
to the version itself, whereof we are speaking, how they stood
affected towards it, one may in some measure learn from this,
that when another version is alleged by them they cite not
this at all.
II}. The Jews knew well enough that the Greek version
was not published for Jews, but for heathen; and was done
by their labour who came unwillingly to that work, nor would
have suffered any such thing, if it had laid in their power to
have hindered it. But now, with what faithfulness such a
thing was done, the thing itself speaks, and the Jews knew it
well enough; who knew also well enough with what small af-
fection the whole Jewish nation stood towards the heathen.
By no argument, therefore, shall any persuade me that
that version was a pure and accurate version, exactly accord-
ing to the Hebrew truth which the interpreters had in their
hands; and that the differences which we now perceive in our
Bibles were risen thence, that the Jews depraved the He-
brew text according to their pleasure. For I shall never
believe that any masters of the Jews would exhibit a pure,
uncorrupted, and exact Bible to the heathen, in the Greek
version; and obtrude an interpolated, depraved, corrupt one
upon themselves. And let us call themselves in for judges
in this case :—
f Sanhedr. fol. too. 2. gig. fol. 13.1. Bathra, fol. 98. 2.
& Fol. 11.2. especially Sanhedr. in the place
h Bab. Chetub. fol. 110.2. Cha- before.
Ch. ix.] Addenda to1 Cor. xiv. 307
I. Ini Gen. ii. 2, the Greek words are, Συνετέλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς
ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ TH ἕκτῃ" And God finished on the sixth day. Was
it to that very sense in the copy which the interpreters used?
“They changed, and wrote, say the Gemarists, ὩΣ bom
swwrt He finished in the siath day.” The Gloss writes,
“That it might not be said that God did any thing on the
sabbath.” In their Hebrew copy it was as it is in ours,
ὍΣΩΙ ov2 b>, “ And God ended his work on the seventh
day :” but they changed it in the Hebrew transcript whereof
we spake, and so did the interpreters in the Greek version.
II. In Exod. xii. 40, the Greek words are, “H δὲ κατοίκησις
τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ, ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν yn Αἰγύπτῳ, καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν,
&c. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they
sojourned in the land of Eaypt, and in Canaan, &c. Did the
interpreters read so in their Hebrew copy? No. They
changed (say the Talmudists), and writ, PINT) OME PARA
929 Ln the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan.” In
the copy which was in their hands, those words 1.25 YAN7A)
in the land of Canaan, were absent: but they added it of
their own. The Gloss saith, “ Lest it should be said, A lie
is written in your law: for behold, Kohath was among those
that went down into Egypt. And if you reckon all the years
of Kohath, Amram, and Moses, they amount not to four
hundred.”
1. In Numb. xvi. 15, the Greek words are, Οὐκ ἐπιθύμημα
οὐδενὸς αὐτῶν εἴληφα: I have not taken the desire of any of
them. Was “WOM desire, written in the copy used of the
Seventy? No. It is an alteration, say the masters; for it
was written "WAM an ass, and they transferred it into TM
desire. The Gloss writes, ‘That it might not be said, Per-
haps he took not an ass, but he took away some other desir-
able thing.” And you may know the lion by his paw.
Let these things be spoken to prove that it is not so hete-
rodox to suppose that the Greek version was not read in the
synagogues cf the Hellenists, but the Hebrew text, so as it
was in the synagogues of the Hebrews. And now let us
briefly weigh what things are said on the contrary side.
i English folio edition, vol. 11. p. 808.
308 Addenda to1 Cor. xiv. (Ch. x.
CHAP. X.
What things are objected for the affirmative.
I. Firsr, That passage* is objected, “ R. Levi went to
Ceesarea, and hearing them read the lesson yw Schema,
(Deut. vi,) in Greek, would hinder them. R. Jose observing
it was angry, saying, He that cannot read in Hebrew, shall
he not read at all? Yea, let a man read in any tongue which
he understands and knows, and so satisfy his duty.” So the
words are rendered by a very learned man.
But the Gemara treats not of reading the law in the syna-
gogues, but concerning the repeating of the passages of the
phylacteries, among which the first was 787? Yow Hear,
O Israel, Deut. vi. [4.] Therefore the word PP is not to
be rendered reading, but repeating. In which sense the word
Np occurs very frequently in the masters. As MD by ms ἪΡ
“« She recites! the Book of Esther by her mouth ;” that is, with-
out book. And, “ Heretofore ™ every one that could MVP
recite,” (that passage used in offering the firstfruits, Deut. xxvi,)
a ND recited. And he that could not recite, ἌΓΩΝ (ae)
they taught him to recite: or they recited for him.
II. That example and story are urged concerning reading
the Law and the Prophets in the synagogue® of Antioch of
Pisidia, Acts xiii. 15. To which there is no need to answer
any thing else but that it begs the question.
III. That also of Tertullian is added, Sed° et Judeei palam
lectitant, vectigalis libertas vulgo auditur (or aditur) singulis
sabbatis: But the Jews also read openly, the liberty of the tax is
heard (or gone unto) every sabbath day.
I answer, Be it granted that Tertullian speaks of the Greek
version, which is not so very evident; that which was done
under Severus doth not conclude the same thing done in the
times of the apostles: but especially when Severus was, ac-
cording to the sense of his name, very severe towards the
Jews, as Baronius teacheth, and Spartianus long before him.
Under whom sabbaths could not be kept by the Jews, but
under a tax. And be it granted that the Greek version was
k Hieros. Sotah, cap. 7. n Leusden’s edition, vol.ii. p.938.
' Bab. Megill. fol. 17. 1. ° Apologet. cap. 18.
™ Biccurim, fol. 86. 1.
Ch. xi.] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 309
read then by them at Rome, (as the Glosser upon Tertullian
describes the scene of the affair,) that was also under a tax ;
not by the choice of the people, but by pure compulsion.
IV. That of Justin Martyr is produced; Ei δέ τις φάσκοι
μὴ ἡμῖν τὰς βίβλους ταύτας, ἀλλὰ ᾿Ιουδαίοις προσήκειν, διὰ TO ἔτι
καὶ νῦν ἐν τάϊς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν σώζεσθαι: ButP if any say
that these books belong not to us, but the Jews, and therefore they
are to this day preserved in their synagogues’. And,” Ewewav
ai βίβλοι καὶ παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίοις μέχρι τοῦ δεῦρο, &e. Thet books
remaimed even among the Egyptians hitherto, and are every-
where among all the Jews, who, reading them, understood them
not.
V. But that is instead of all, that Philo and Josephus fol-
low the Greek version; and that (which is still greater) the
holy penmen do follow it in the New Testament, in their alle-
gations taken out of the Old. Therefore, without doubt, say
they, that version was frequent and common in the syna-
gogues, and in the hands of men; and without doubt, of the
highest authority among the Jews; yea, as it seemeth, of
divine. These are the arguments which are of the greatest
weight on that side.
That I may, therefore, answer together to all, let us expa-
tiate a little in this inquiry.
ΟΗΑΡ. ΧΙ.
By what authors and counsels it might probably be that that
Greek version came forth which obtains under the name of
‘ The Seventy.
I. Iv was made and published, without doubt, not for the
sake of the Jews, but of the heathen. We have Josephus a
witness here in his story of the Seventy : granting him to be
true in that relation, what moved Ptolemy so greedily to
desire the version, to purchase so small a volume at such
vast expenses? Was it religion? or a desire of adorning his
library ? By that paint does Josephus colour the business :
but reason will dictate a third cause, and that far more
likely. For both the Jewish and heathen writers teach, that
Egypt at that time was filled with an infinite multitude of
P Orat. Parznet. ad Grecos. 4 English folio edit., vol. ii. p. 799.
r Apolog. 2.
310 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. [Ch. xi.
Jews ; and what could a prudent king, and that took care of
himself and his kingdom, do else than look into the manners
and institutions of that nation, whether they consisted with
the peace and security of his kingdom; since that people was
contrary to the manners and laws of all other nations.
When, therefore, he could neither examine nor understand
their law, which comprised their whole religion, polity and
economy, being written in Hebrew ; it was necessary for him
to provide to have it translated into their vulgar tongue.
Hence arose the version of the ‘ five elders,’ as we may well
suppose ; and lest some fraud or collusion might creep in,
the assembling of the ‘Seventy-two elders’ was occasioned
hence also. And does it not savour of some suspicion, that
he assembled them, being altogether ignorant what they were
to do? For let reason tell us why we should not rather give
eredit to the Talmudists writing for their own countrymen,
than to Josephus writing for the heathen: and if there be
any truth in that relation, that when he had gathered them
together he shut them up by themselves in so many chambers,
that still increaseth the same suspicion.
II. Let it be yielded that they turned it into Greek ; which,
as we have seen, is doubtful; yet the speech in the Gemarists
is only concerning the Books of Moses, and concerning the
law only in Josephus. Who, therefore, translated the rest of
the books of the holy volume? It is without an author per-
haps should we say, the Jerusalem Sanhedrim, but not with-
out reason. For,
III. The Jews, wheresoever dispersed throughout the
world, and they in very many regions infinite in their num-
bers, made it their earnest request that they might live and
be governed by their own laws; and indeed they would live
by none but their own. But what prince would grant this,
being altogether ignorant what those laws were? They saw
their manners and rites were contrary to all other nations; it
was needful also to see whether they were not contrary to
the peace of their kingdoms. That very jealousy could not
but require the version of those laws into the common lan-
guage, and to force it also from them, how unwilling soever
they might be. The great Sanhedrim, therefore, could not
consult better and more wisely for the safety and security
Ch. xi.] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 311
and religion of the whole nation, than by turning their holy
books into the Greek language, that all might know what it
was that they professed. They could not but see but those
books would at last, though they were never so unwilling,
come forth in the vulgar language; nor could they hinder
but they would everywhere happen into the hands of the hea-
then. Therefore, that it would be far better that a version
should come forth by their care and authority’, which might
be according to their pleasures, than that some should come
forth in one place, and some in another, which perhaps
might turn to the disgrace of the holy text, or to the danger
and reproach of the nation, or might too much lay open the
holy mysteries among the heathen.
Byt these authors, and by these reasons, I confess ingenu-
ously it is my opinion that that version was made which goes
about under the name of ‘the Seventy.” Nor are there some
things wanting in the version itself which hint some such
counsel in the publishing of it. For,
IV. Even a blear eye may see clearly enough that it was
hammered out, and dressed with more caution than con-
science, more craft than sincerity: 1. That, as much as
might be, the holy books might remain free from any re-
proach or cavilling of the heathen: 2. That they might
soften some things which might be injurious to the Jewish
nation, either as to their peace or reputation, or which might
create offence to the Gentiles: 3. That the mysteries and
the bare truth of the holy books might be revealed as little
as possibly could be to the heathen. All which might be
demonstrated by such numberless examples as to leave no
occasion to doubt of that matter behind it.
By these and the like cautions and subtleties was that ver-
sion made; wherein the translators had less care that the
interpretation should come out sincere and true; but provi-
sion was chiefly made that any thing should be thrust upon
the Gentiles, so it were without danger, and that the glory
and safety of the Jewish nation might be maintained. And
may it be allowed me to speak out what I think? Among the
various copies and editions of this version which go about, |
s Leusden’s edit., vol. ii. p.939. * English folio edit., yol. i. p. 810.
419 Addenda οι Cor, xiv. [Ch, x1.
do not esteem that copy for the most genuine which comes
nearest to the Hebrew text, but that which comes nearest to
the mind of the translators in such like cautions.
It is said, as we saw before, that when the five elders had
turned the law, “that day was bitter to Israel, as the day
wherein the golden calf was made.” And why? “ Because
the law could not be turned according to all things conye-
nient to it.” Did their grief arise hence, because it was not
turned, nor could not be, clearly, exactly, and evidently
enough, that the heathen might see the full and open light
of it? Who will believe that this ever was the Jews’ desire or
wish? But their trouble proceeded rather from hence, that
those five had not translated it cunningly, warily, and eraftily
enough, as the Gentiles were to be dealt withal.
Of this matter there was care enough taken in this version;
the authors setting all their strength and wits on work, that,
according to their own pleasures, it might come forth such as
they would have it, and might serve their purpose both as to
themselves and as to the Gentiles. This they established
and strengthened by their own authority, not as a pure ver-
sion, and such as was to be recommended to their coun-
trymen, but as fit enough to stop the mouths and satisfy the
curiosity of the heathen, and lest any among them might
attempt another, in which those cautions and provisions
might not be sufficiently observed.
This they laid up in their Sanhedrims and synagogues,
that it might be ready, and shown to the heathen as a sym-
bol and token of the Jewish law, faith, and religion, if at any
time the matter and necessity called for some such thing.
We grant, therefore, to Justin Martyr, that that version
was in the synagogues and hands of the Jews ; but one would
not conclude from that, that it was read in the synagogue
instead of the Hebrew text. And we will yield also to Ter-
tullian, that that version was read at Rome in his age, in the
synagogues of the Jews; but being compelled so to do by
that suspicion whereof we spake, namely, that it might be
known to all what the law and religion of the Jews was, whe-
ther it consisted with the Roman government. Our question
is, Whether the Hellenists chose to themselves the reading of
the Greek version, and neglected the Hebrew text; and
Ch. xi. ] Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. 313
seeing for the most part they lived by their own laws and
ordinances, you will hardly any where show me, especially in
the times of the apostles, concerning which we speak, or in
the times before them, that they were compelled to reject the
one and to read the other.
And as to that which is objected concerning Philo and
Josephus, it is no wonder if they, writing for the heathen,
followed that version which was designedly made for the
heathen.
But that is of the greatest weight of all, which is objected
concerning* the evangelists and apostles who embraced that
version in their quotations out of the Old Testament. To
which the answer is very easy; namely, those holy writers
had to do with two sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles: the
volume of the New Testament was in the hands of both. <A
Gentile desires to examine the quotations which are brought
out of the Old Testament; but not understanding the He-
brew, whither should he go but to the Greek version which
he understands? So that it was not only ἐκ συγκαταβάσεως,
out of condescension, that those holy writers followed the
Greek version, but out of pure necessity: for otherwise it
was impossible that their allegations out of the Law and the
Prophets could be examined by the Gentiles. And if a Jew,
having the New Testament in his hand, should complain and
quarrel that in their quotations they departed from the He-
brew text, they had an answer ready, viz. this very version
which" is cited is that very same which ye have written, pub-
lished, and propounded to the world, as the symbol and token
of your law* and religion, and as your own very Bible.
If we would designedly attempt a full disquisition con-
cerning that version, we might, it may be, more at large de-
monstrate all these things which have been spoken, by various
instances, reasons, and methods. But let this suffice at pre-
sent. This discourse was raised by occasion of the mention
of the ‘ unknown tongue,’ chap. xiv, which we suppose was
Hebrew, formerly used in the Hellenistical synagogue of the
Corinthians, and which they would retain, being now con-
verted to the gospel ; too much wresting to Judaism the gift
of tongues, in the same manner as they did the other privi-
u English folio edit., vol.ii. p.811. * Leusden’s edit., vol. il. p. 940.
LIGHTPOOT, VOL. IV. δὲ
314 Addenda to 1 Cor. xiv. (Ch. xi.
leges and ordinances of the gospel; and using an unknown
language so much the rather, because the gift of tongues was
granted from Heaven, using it to an end plainly contrary to
’ the gift itself; unhappily perverting it, and not requiring,
not admitting now an interpreter, [which before was done by
them, | as if they thought God had given unknown tongues to
be unknown to all besides those to whom they were given.
In what I have said of the Greek version, and of the not
reading it among the Hellenists, 1 know I have very learned
men differing in their opinions from me; and heretofore I
myself was of a contrary judgment. Whence, I hope, the
reader will be the more easily persuaded that I do not speak
these things from a desire of contention, but from a serious
inquiry, as far as I am able, into the thing, from often re-
peated thoughts, and a most hearty desire of searching after
truth.
CONTENTS
ADDENDA TO 1 COR. XIV.
CHAP. I.
Concerning the Hebrews and Hellenists ..................... Page 286
CHAE. “EL
Of the Hebrews in Babylon, and the adjacent countries...... τς ον
CHAP. ἘΠῚ’
In the same regions were the seats of the ten tribes ............ 291
CHAP. IV.
Peter preaching the gospel in Babylon ...................0c0.c0ee0s 294
CHAE Ve
The Hebrew Bible read in the synagogues of the Hebrews...... 295
CHAP Vi.
What the Jews think of the versions ..,...... .........s:see ecco 297
CHAPS VEE
A comparison of the history of the LXX as it is in Josephus
andras/itasun- the Valmuadistes: 5 πὸ πὴ πὰ 299
CEP! NEE
Of the thirteen places that were changed ........................ 302
CHAP: 1X.
In what value ‘ the Version of the Seventy,’ as it is commonly
called, seems to have been among the Jews..................... 303
CHEAGB Xe
What things are objected for the affirmative ..................... 308
CHAP XE
By what authors and counsels it might probably be that that
Greek version came forth, which obtains under the name
Ci LEMS EVEDLY A crime acticin Sete ete tat area cree eh ee ae a
309
ers
ne en age
mae τοῖς
οὐδ
“¥)
eo
‘ J Ἀ δὲ
eT ee hel a he oan ae. a
-
τσοὶ
Saye ὙΦ
1ST 4
ὡς
*
; ieee Hla? Es ΠΡΗΉΡΗΤΗΝ id
eyed sis ic iiesas sige 2.22 EEE Ἢ
UUM EE HUAI
rere =
SAA Ny
*
Oe a
γα «πὶ
ben a)
anaes
_ “ar
ν"-
ΚΝ
ΠῚ ἘΝ
ema
ora, VMAS μι ;
SSARWTA Dn T
me
Reval
bike ots
«
a ν᾿
ye
aw ey
ety,
nee
es ~2
A ua
1 RN ae eh omen WA
waa
ry
᾽ν
ry
=
ΤΣ
ΠΗ
A:
δ
ΗΝ
ἣν
vw τας"
Sst τη ας,
νὰ y
3
PRN OPW Rages cent
ν δέω Wa nt
PVE ean
San Sree 3
“ς rane AA Art ns
regener
“ren
Sas,
te
Swe
ae
mas
ian
Ome,
“ων ee
a tens see "
etna NOM Te
RPO. we, | ky
Pen Ses »
*
~
Seve
Wans95:
eta y
fey
Zee
ees
δ
ὅσαις
a
' Η ΜΗ
ἢ
pA
Le Pate
“ay $3 sé -
HG aie ΠΠΕῚΞ ati.
Εν et ΠΝ
FP
+ =
eens .
eae)
¥
Seemed
πραγ ATER κων,
Ν An τας
PON 5 SOOO
ee ae
~
el
axa
Labial. 4 τ
ΠΣ
i ἐπέ f
ee
ζ.
ee " Y Ay
sae ΩΣ
PETE ---
PERU ee
eG
Spee
hens,
- .
aang ae é = ~
Wingy Ν τ κὸ » ᾿ Ν
ἌΝ > > 2 ah
aire ρων ΠΥ
ἊΣ 4 * - + .
tei) :
ἣν ἢ
zn
ae
os
owen
PR ony “-
etna
Tm Regge
~ -ρο =e Re - .
J inhiewhnoeoe a
Ste
3:
"
ener
ote mas
ω 19a
Seve
eosin
Sone 7
ὩΣ ΤΕΥ
a
: Ἄλον
oie
tem PEAR DR
- δὴ δὲ
ν a
© as 2
era
=
bed
»: i
β n>
Se
Sanrio
maatrtrenet § n a. 3
x a erereeens ry
ot
se,
Peony,
wren ene ra
ey
oe
ΩΝ
ΩΣ ΑΝ
ἀρ σδα were,
me.
a
αδλντι Ss,
,
2 Ns
αν ον
>
a
ot a
:
"
“σὰ σους
Ale me
: ὶ
si σλορκς Sn
eases eacee
eae)
Sane eee Fereseen besa
ones 5 : SI
Slate
Sac aetace
Ἂς Sameer
ων!
Sse
*
rms
aaa Ἢ Ὄ
λας a ων
δὰ
- δ
at τᾷ
bredhowiliccend
eae
Ny time
5
Τὴ ὑπο ὩΣ Wye : (etbphaceihs en 9 het ath nce He hye
. ᾿ γ δόλο Ψ t Wea Siete . a
- = 5 ἢ 3 Ἂς aero cee - στον " ᾿ ὥ ᾿ Ae .
er rene ~ neers : : κ᾿ mi ert “oy > > - 4
Seer lins awa meas = - ores ; - Se a Seo <e
τα ~ Siena me mer , ; va Ν
ΡΩΝ ᾿ - = _— %
ἂν
ΣΌΝ
" Moms
age Ras,
hem σὴν ὑδεννλιαῦν
ie
AY
ty rags
~ Ss
oe
halo’
ἢ ΡΤ.
ΠΕ
eye Bg
ERA ae ened Ἢ
ΠΕ er ire at bese) ee er
1 H Freee al E ee Hi
if kA
:
fi; Bass, f ese
>. Ste PASS cA
fis He ad
in
U
Tater,
if
S .*
s 2
ay
τὶ
" =? δι
ane
" we ere:
eb te
=
Ἷ a Η ie Seer: ΣΟ ΠΗ LET ΕΗ ΣῈΙ re.
| A He ΠΗ ΠΗ
: ΠΝ a ἜΠΝΗ ΠΣ ΠΉΜΗΡΣ
{ ΠΗ]
: ᾿ ΠΗ ΗΒ ΠΉΤΒΗ
ΗΜ
ai
DOT ee, eo
Sao
tS aah
neste τον
POR ταῖς πν..Φὲ, cone
Avcarenn, ato
~ ie -- ~~. Ὁ
aes SNaitaa teens
een
ease Meher seay
eee ee
Pen ded
πο
ster
sana
ΠῚ τς -
πος
{ ΓΝ FF (fe:
1.
PS
He :
FY NSB oe
& <2
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11